UC-NRLF 


$B    EbT    TDl 


^^ 


.y^? 


THE      DEVELOPMENT      OF 
CABINET    GOVERNMENT 
IN    ENGLAND  • 


BY 

MARY  TAYLOR   BLAUVELT,  M.A. 


^   OF  THE  A 

UNIVERSITY  ) 


THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON:   MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1902 

AN  rights  reserved 


/O 


f^J 


^o\ 


Copyright,  1902, 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  elcctrotyped  March,  1909. 


\ 


Norfajooli  ^ress 

J.  S.  CuBhing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 

Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


STo  Mi  Jatjjet  attli  iWa  ITOotfiet 


109957 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/developmentofcabOOblaurich 


PREFACE 

In  addition  to  the  authorities  to  which  reference  is 
made  in  the  text,  the  author  would  acknowledge  her 
indebtedness  to  Hearn's  "  Government  of  England," 
Todd's  "  Parliamentary  Government,"  Coxe's  *'  Institutes 
of  English  Government,"  Traill's  "  Central  Government," 
Dicey's  "  Privy  Council,"  and  to  the  histories  of  Stubbs, 
Hallam,  Macaulay,  Stanhope,  Lecky,  and  May. 

Particular  acknowledgments  are  due  to  the  author's 
Oxford  tutor,  Mr.  J.  A.  R.  Mariott,  who  suggested  the 
work  and  read  the  manuscript  so  far  as  it  was  completed 
in  England,  and  to  Professor  F.  York  Powell,  who  also 
read  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  manuscript  and  made 
valuable  suggestions. 


"  The  English  have  left  the  different  parts  of  their  constitution 
just  where  the  wave  of  history  has  deposited  them ;  they  have  not 
attempted  to  bring  them  together,  to  classify  and  complete  them, 
or  to  make  a  consistent  and  coherent  whole."  —  Boutmy. 

"  The  laws  reach  but  a  very  little  way.  Constitute  government 
how  you  please,  infinitely  the  greater  part  of  it  must  depend  upon 
the  exercise  of  powers  which  are  left  at  large  to  the  prudence  and 
uprightness  of  ministers  of  state.  Even  all  the  use  and  potency  of 
the  laws  depend  upon  them.  Without  them  your  commonwealth 
is  little  more  than  a  scheme  upon  paper,  and  not  a  living,  active, 
effective  organization."  —  Burke. 

"  A  committee  with  power  which  no  assembly  would  —  unless 
for  historical  accidents  and  after  happy  experiences  —  have  been 
persuaded  to  trust  to  any  committee."  —  Bagehot. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

/  The  Privy  Council 

The  Cabinet  unknown  to  English  law — Definition  of  the  Cabi- 
net —  Its  functions  —  Origin  of  the  Privy  Council  — 
Concilium  Ordinarium  —  Composed  of  men  of  all  variety 
of?  opinion  - —  Its  functions  easily  confused  with  those  of 
Magnum  Concilium  or  Parliament  —  Struggle  between 
Parliament  and  Council  —  Charter  confirmed  in  1297  — 
Petition  of  Commons  in  1390  —  Parliament  forces  King 
to  dismiss  Bishop  of  Winchester,  1233  —  And  exile  Piers 
de  Gaveston,  131 2  —  First  Parliamentary  impeachment, 
1376  —  First  trace  of  doctrine  of  joint  ministerial  respon- 
sibility, 1386  — First  Bill  of  Attainder,  1388  — Efforts  of 
Parliament  to  secure  power  of  appointment  —  Absolutism 
of  the  Tudors  —  Their  government  a  government  by 
councils  —  It  becomes  customary  for  ministers  to  have 
seats  in  the  House  of  Commons  —  The  Star  Chamber  — 
Decline  of  the  Council  under  the  Stuarts  —  Increase  in 
importance  of  Parliament        ...... 

CHAPTER  II 

The  First  Step  toward  Cabinet  Government 

The  Cabinet  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  —  Gradual 
separation  of  small  number  of  privy  councillors  from  the 
rest  —  Hostility  of  Parliament  thereby  increased  —  Early 
use   of  the   term   Cabinet   Council  —  Attempts   of  the 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


House  of  Commons  to  appoint  the  councillors  and  to 
hold  them  responsible  —  Clarendon's  Committee  of  For- 
eign Affairs  —  Precedents  for  it  —  Its  composition  and 
powers  —  Relation  to  the  Privy  Council  —  Relation  to 
Parliament  —  Impeachment  of  ministers  by  Parliament 

—  Clarendon  keeps  his  position  through  favor  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  spite  of  the  displeasure  of  the  King — A  num- 
ber of  ministers,  but  no  ministry  —  No  acknowledged  first 
minister  —  The  King  de  facto  and  de  jure  head  of  gov- 
ernment—  Unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  not  required  — 
Ministers  do  not  resign  when  their  advice  is  not  taken  — 
Ministers  not  always  consulted  —  The  King  has  advisers 
other  than  the  ministers  —  Development  of  the  idea  of  a 
ministry  as  shown  in  the  impeachments  of  Clarendon  and 
Danby 20 

CHAPTER  III 

An  Attempt  at  a  Compromise:  Sir  William 
Temple's  Scheme 

From  the  Restoration,  Parliament  a  permanent  feature  of  the 
Constitution  —  Hence,  tendency  to  absorb  all  the  functions 
of  government  —  Attempts  on  the  part  of  the  King  to 
control  Parliament  —  Sir  William  Temple  asked  to  frame 
a  plan  of  government  —  His  character  —  His  plan  — The 
King  and  Temple  disagree  over  the  admission  of  Halifax 
and  Shaftesbury  to  the  Council  —  Formation  of  interior 
Council  of  nine  —  Formation  of  interior  Council  of  three         ' 

—  Halifax  added  to  this  Council  —  Dissensions  in  the 
Council  —  Shaftesbury  become^Meader  of  the  opposition 
in  Parliament  —  Shaftesbury  and  Monmouth  are  for  a 
short  time  members  of  the  interior  Council  —  Dissolution 
of  Parliament — Dissolution  of  interior  Council  —  Forma- 
tion of  new  interior  Council  —  Members  of  Council 
cease  to  attend  —  Abandonment  of  the  plan  —  Causes 

for  its  failure 50 


CONTENTS  Xi 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Second  Step  toward  Gabinet  GovERNMENy 

PAGB 

Temple's  scheme  makes  no  permanent  change  in  the  situation 

—  Origin  of  the  Whig  and  Tory  parties  —  Composition 
of  the  Cabinet  in  the  last  days  of  Charles  II.  —  Meetings 
of  ministers  apart  from  the  King —  Cabinets  of  James  II. 

—  First  Cabinet  of  William  III.  —  Dissensions  in  this 
Cabinet — Hostility  of  Parliament  to  Cabinet  government 

—  Resignation  of  Halifax  and  of  Shrewsbury  —  The 
business  of  government  almost  at  a  standstill  —  Sunder- 
land suggests  that  Parliamentary  leaders  be  chosen  as 
ministers  —  And  that  for  the  present  the  ministers  be 
taken  entirely  from  the  Whigs  — The  government  of  the 
Junto,  1695-1698  — The  King  still  the  real  head  of  the 
administration  —  No  Prime  Minister  —  Appointments  in 
the  hands  of  the  King  —  He  transacts  business  vv^ithout 
the  knovi^ledge  of  the  Cabinet  —  The  Partition  Treaty  — 
The  Cabinet  not  a  sharply  defined  body  —  Unwillingness 
of  ministers  to  give  advice  —  Principle  of  the  solidarity  of 
the  Cabinet  not  yet  established  —  Difficulty  of  the  minis- 
ters in  serving  both  King  and  Parliament  —  The  Junto  • 
do  not  resign  on  losing  their  majority  in  the  Commons  — 
Better  discipline  maintained  among  the  Whigs  than  here- 
tofore — A  divided  ministry  succeeds  the  Junto  —  William 
promises  to  establish  another  Whig  ministry,  but  dies 
before  it  is  accomplished  —  Attempts  to  exclude  ministers 
from  the  Commons  by  means  of  place  bills  —  Attempt 

to  revive  the  Privy  Council  by  a  clause  in  the  Act  of 
Settlement  —  Contemporary  account  of  the  Constitution 
under  William .        .      6< 


Xll  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Position  of  the  Cabinet  under  Anne 

PACK 

Further  Cabinet  development  impossible  until  doctrine  of  royal 
impersonality  was  established  —  William  III.  followed  by 
a  succession  of  three  weak  sovereigns  —  Yet  Anne  is  de- 
sirous of  maintaining  her  personal  rule  —  More  anxious 
to  appoint  ministers  than  to  control  Parliament  —  i\p- 
points  a  Tory  ministry  at  the  beginning  of  her  reign  — > 
A  Whig  ministry  is  gradually  forced  upon  her  —  Appoint- 
ment of  Somers  —  Harley  forced  out  of  the  Cabinet  — 
Anne's  last  ministry  appointed  by  herself — Dismissal  of 
Godolphin — The  Queen  insists  on  retaining  the  Duchess 
of  Sunderland  in  her  service  —  Dismissal  of  Oxford  — 
The  Queen  tries  to  control  minor  appointments  —  For- 
eign envoys  obtain  private  audiences  of  her  —  She  is 
responsible  for  the  restraining  orders  —  And  for  the 
proclamation  against  the  Pretender  —  Oxford  throws  re- 
sponsibility of  his  action  on  Queen  —  Statement  of  min- 
isterial responsibility  in  House  of  Lords  —  Anne  the  last 
sovereign  to  use  the  veto — The  word  Cabinet  used 
in  address  of  House  of  Lords  to  Queen  —  Debate  on  the 
Cabinet  in  the  House  of  Lords  —  Ratification  of  the 
Peace  of  Utrecht  by  the  Council  —  Revival  of  Council  at 
death  of  Anne  —  Members  of  House  of  Commons  on 
taking  office  required  to  submit  themselves  for  reelection 

—  Creation  of  twelve  new  peers  in  1711 — Influence  of 
Parliament  upon  appointments  —  Ministers  sometimes 
fail  to  take  the  position  of  Parliamentary  leaders  —  Occa- 
sional Conformity  Bill  —  Act  of  Union  —  Schism  Act  — 
Development  of  office  of  Prime  Minister — Cabinet  meet- 
ings—  Uncertainty  as  to  who  had  a  right  to  attend  — 
Important  affairs  often  not  discussed  in  Cabinet  meetings 

—  Harley's  dinners  —  Throughout  the  reign  of  Anne 
hybrid  administrations  —  This  partly  accidental  —  And 
partly  of  set  purpose  —  Development  of  party  organiza- 
tion —  Summary  of  progress  during  the  reign  .         .        ,     io2 


CONTENTS  Xiii 

CHAPTER  VI 

Influence  of  the  Crown  under  the  First  Two 
Georges 

PAGE 

Decline  in  royal  influence  due  to  tenure  by  which  the  House 
of  Hanover  held  the  throne  —  Loss  of  royal  state  — 
Character  of  the  kings — Their  dislike  for  England  — 
Ignorance  of  state  affairs  —  Exclusive  employment  of  the 
Whigs  —  Extinction  of  high  prerogative  sentiment  among 
the  Tories  —  The  ministry  of  Townshend  —  Changes  in 
1716-1717  due  entirely  to  royal  v^^ill  —  The  administra- 
tion of  Walpole  —  A  Prime  Minister  whom  the  King 
gave  to  the  people  —  Yet  he  depended  upon  Parlia- 
mentary support —  George  II.  is  obliged  to  retain  Wal- 
pole  —  Walpole  exerts  himself  to  gain  the  royal  favor  — 
he  loses  his  majority  and  resigns  —  Distinct  era  in  de- 
cline of  royal  power  —  The  King  is  unable  to  appoint 
his  successors  —  Divisions  in  the  new  Cabinet  —  Henry 
Pelham  appointed  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  —  Granville 
dismissed  —  The  Broad-Bottom  administration  —  Resig- 
nation of  the  Pelhams  —  Parliament  refuses  to  support 
Granville  —  The  Pelhams  reinstated  —  Newcastle  suc- 
ceeds Pelham  —  Walpole 's  attempt  to  form  an  adminis- 
tration —  Administration  of  Pitt  —  Influence  of  the  Crown 
on  measures  —  The  King  ceases  to  attend  Cabinet  meet- 
ings—  The  King  no  longer  held  responsible  for  measures 
—  The  King's  speech  —  Feeling  of  security  against  abuse 
of  royal  power 138 

Appendix  A  —  The  King's  presence  at  Cabinet  meetings       .     177 
Appendix  B  —  Conversation  between  George  II.  and  Hard- 

wicke 179 

CHAPTER  VII 

Parliament  under  the  First  Two  Georges 

Increased  importance  of  House  of  Commons  —  Result  of 
appointing  Parliamentary  leaders  as  ministers  —  Trained 


XIV  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

statesmen  among  the  Commons  —  The  Septennial  Act  — 
The  power  of  the  purse  —  Walpole  makes  the  Lower 
House  the  scene  of  action  —  Whence  necessity  of  always 
having  a  prominent  minister  in  Commons — Newcastle 
tries  to  avoid  this  —  Sir  Thomas  Robinson  as  leader  of 
the  Commons  —  Fox  resigns  as  leader  because  of  insuffi- 
cient power  —  Murray  refuses  to  accept  the  leadership  — 
Resignation  of  Newcastle  —  Pitt  without  a  party  in  the 
House  of  Commons  —  Waldegrave  cannot  find  a  leader 
for  the  Commons  —  Yet  no  large  proportion  of  ministers 
in  Commons  —  House  of  Lords  nominates  many  mem- 
bers of  House  of  Commons  —  Organization  of  Commons 
on  party  lines  —  Walpole  the  originator  of  party  govern- 
ment —  His  methods  —  Organization  of  the  opposition 
—  Impeachments  of  Oxford  and  Bolingbroke  the  last 
political  impeachments  in  England  —  Influence  of  the 
country  on  Parliament  and  the  ministers  —  The  Septen- 
nial Act  —  Popular  excitement  over  elections  of  1 741  — 
Statesmen  alarmed  by  popular  influence  on  politics  — 
Parliamentary  reporting  —  Walpole  "withdraws  Excise 
Bill  out  of  deference  to  public  opinion — Pitt  the  first 
popular  Prime  Minister 182 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Internal  Relations  of  the  Cabinet  under  the 
First  Two  Georges 

Rapid  development  of  the  office  of  Prime^Minister  —  No 
Prime  Minister  under  George  I.  —  The  firm,  Townshend 
and  Walpole  —  Intrigues  of  Carteret  —  He  loses  his 
position  as  Secretary  of  State  —  The  firm  becomes  Wal- 
pole and  Townshend  —  Resignation  of  Townshend  — 
Supremacy  of  Walpole  —  Yet  he  feels  obliged  to  disclaim 
the  title  of  Prime  Minister  —  Wilmington  First  Lord  of 
the  Treasury,  but  not  Prime  Minister  —  Newcastle  dis- 
putes Pelham's  right  to  the  Premiership  —  Opposition  of 


CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

Carteret  to    Pelham  —  First   use  of  the   noun  premier 

—  The  Pelham  ministry  a  triangular  arrangement  — 
Pitt  shares  the  power  with  Newcastle  —  The  Cabinet 
does  not  resign  in  a  body — The  Cabinet  as  a  whole  not 
always  consulted  —  Lack  of  unanimity  —  Walpole  strives 

to  enforce  unanimity        .        .        .        .        ,        .        .217 

CHAPTER  IX 

Later  Cabinet  Developmestt 

Attempt  of  George  III.  to  rule  as  well  as  reign — No  change 
in  legal  position  of  sovereign  since  William  III.  —  The 
people  in  the  main  with  George  III.  —  Exclusion  of  the 
Tories  from  power  considered  unjust  —  Bolingbroke's 
"  Patriot  King  "  —  "  Seasonable  Hints  from  an  Honest 
Man  "  —  General  plans  of  George  III.  —  His  first  speech 
to  Parliament  —  Pitt  leaves  the  Cabinet  —  Lord  Bute 
real  Prime  Minister  —  Newcastle  resigns  —  Administra- 
tion of  Bute  —  His  resignation  —  Letter  of  Bute  to  Bed- 
ford—  Administration  of  Grenville  —  The  King  tries  in 
vain  to  get  rid  of  him  —  Bute  banished  from  Court  — 
The  King  attempts  to  govern  in  spite  of  his  ministry  — 
The  first  Rockingham  administration  —  Dissensions  in 
the  ministry  —  Opposition  of  the  Court  —  Resignation  of 
Rockingham  —  Chatham  administration  —  Dissensions 
and  weakness  —  Illness  of  Chatham  —  Formation  of  an 
opposition  to  the  Court  —  The  country  is  roused  —  Ad- 
ministration of  North  —  Temporary  triumph  of  King, 
but  as  King  of  party  —  Parliamentary  reporting  —  Oppo- 
sition of  country  to  ministry  —  Its  fall  —  Second  Rock- 
ingham administration  —  Disfranchisement  of  revenue 
officers  and  Economical  Reform  Act  —  Shelburne  admin- 
istration—  Coalition  ministry  —  Opposition  of  the  King 
and  the  country  —  The  India  Bill  —  Fall  of  the  coalition 

—  Appointment  of  Pitt  —  The  opposition  opposes  disso- 
lution—  Discussion  in  Parliament  for  three  months  — 


XVI  CONTENTS 


PACK 


The  country  decides  in  favor  of  Pitt  —  Victory  of  the 
people  over  the  nobles  and  over  the  Crown  —  Pitt  builds 
up  ministerial  authority — His  fall  in  i8oi  — Administra- 
tion of  Addington  —  Second  Pitt  administration  —  The 
ministry  of  "  All  the  Talents "  —  The  King  requires  a 
pledge  from  it  —  The  ministry  refuses  and  resigns  — 
Parliamentary  debate  on  the  subject  of  pledges  —  Minis- 
terial arrangements  at  beginning  of  the  regency  —  The 
Queen's  trial  —  Catholic  emancipation  —  The  Reform 
Act  —  William  IV.  finds  himself  unable  to  turn  out  the 
Melbourne  ministry  in  1834  —  The  Bedchamber  Question 
—  Queen  Victoria's  memorandum  to  Lord  Palmerston  — 
Pitt  on  the  office  of  Prime  Minister  —  Cabinet  ministers 
changed  simultaneously  —  Unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  — 
Personalia  of  the  Cabinet 240 


the' DEVELOPMENT    OF    CABINET 
GOVERNMENT   IN   ENGLAND 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CABINET 
GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 


CHAPTER   I 


THE   PRIVY   COUNCIL 


The  Cabinet  unknown  to  English  law  —  Definition  of  the  Cabinet 

—  Its  functions  —  Origin  of  the  Privy  Council  —  Concilium 
Ordinarium  —  Composed  of  men  of  all  variety  of  opinion —  Its 
functions  easily  confused  with  those  of  Magnum  Concilium  or 
Parliament  —  Struggle  between  Parliament  and  Council  — 
Charter  confirmed  in  1297  —  Petition  of  Commons  in  1390  — 
Parliament  forces  King  to  dismiss  Bishop  of  Winchester  (1233) 

—  And  exile  Piers  de  Gaveston  (131 2) — First  Parliamentary 
impeachment  (1376) — First  trace  of  doctrine  of  joint  minis- 
terial responsibility  (1386) — First  Bill  of  Attainder  (1388)  — 
Efforts  of  Parliament  to  secure  power  of  appointment  —  Abso- 
lutism of  the  Tudors  —  Their  government  a  government  by 
councils  —  It  becomes  customary  for  ministers  to  have  seats 
in  the  House  of  Commons  —  The  Star  Chamber  —  Decline  of 
the  Council  under ,  the  Stuarts  —  Increase  in  importance  of 
Parliament. 

TO  trace  the  development  and  to  define  the  pow- 
ers of  an  institution  which  owes  its  existence  to 
naught  save  custom  must  always  be  a  difficult  task.  The 
institution  with  which  I  have  to  deal,  the  English  Cabinet, 

B  I 


2  CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

has  thus  far  found  not  only  its  Alpha,  but  also  its  Omega, 
in  custom.  For  that  body  which  is  the  distinguishing 
feature  of  the  English  Constitution,  the  link  which  con- 
nects the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of  gov- 
ernment, producing  not  only  unity,  but  almost  complete 
identity,  thus  bringing  about  a  harmony  and  symmetry 
of  governmental  action  not  to  be  found  elsewhere,  is  still 
unknown  to  English  law.  The  official  position  of  its 
head  is  commonly  that  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury. 
As  such,  eight  officers  of  State  take  precedence  of  him. 
As  Prime  Minister  he  has  no  legal  existence.^ 

The  Cabinet  may  be  defined  as  a  political  committee 
of  the  Privy  Council,  chosen  in  fact,  if  not  in  theory,  by 
the  House  of  Commons  to  govern  the  nation.  Its  head 
may  be  a  member  of  either  the  House  of  Commons  or 
the  House  of  Lords,  but  must  be  the  leader  of  the  party 
in  power  in  the  House  of  Commons.  He  is  appointed 
nominally  by  the  Crown,  but  where  the  ruling  party  has 
a  distinctly  recognized  leader,  the  Crown  has  no  choice 
but  to  appoint  this  leader.     When  there  is  no  such  pre- 

^  There  is  a  curious  story  to  the  effect  that  when  Lord  Palmers- 
ton,  as  premier,  visited  Scotland  in  1863,  the  captain  of  the  guard- 
ship  wished  to  do  him  honor,  but  found  a  difficulty  in  the  fact  that 
the  Prime  Minister  is  not  recognized  in  the  code  of  naval  salutes. 
He  finally  found  an  escape  from  his  dilemma  in  the  discovery  that 
Lord  Palmerston  was  not  only  Prime  Minister,  but  also  warden  of 
the  Cinque  Ports,  for  whom  a  salute  of  nineteen  guns  is  prescribed. 
—  Ashley,  "  Life  of  Palmerston,"  Vol.  II.  p.  233. 


THE  PRIVY   COUNCIL  3 

eminent  leadership,  the  Crown  may  choose  from  among 
the  two  or  three  most  prominent  members  of  the  party. 
The  members  of  the  Cabinet  are  the  heads  of  the  princi- 
pal executive  departments.  They  are  appointed  nomi- 
nally by  the  Prime  Minister,  but  the  Prime  Minister's 
power  of  choice  is  limited  by  the  fact  that  he  is  obliged 
to  appoint  such  members  of  his  party  as  can  command 
Parliamentary  support. 

The  Cabinet  acts  not  only  as  an  executive  board,  but 
it  also  controls  legislation.  The  more  important  bills  are 
commonly  introduced  by  its  members.  Bills  introduced 
by  private  persons  are  generally  passed  or  rejected,  as 
seems  good  to  the  ministers  controlHng  a  majority  of  the 
votes.  When  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  command  this 
majority,  the  Cabinet  either  goes  out  of  office  at  once 
or  it  may  make  a  final  appeal  to  the  country  by  a  disso- 
lution of  ParHarnent,  and  a  call  for  an  election  of  a  new 
House  of  Commons.  If  in  this  new  House  the  ministers 
fail  to  obtain  a  majority,  they  must  resign  immediately. 

In  all  measures  brought  before  Parliament  the  Cabi- 
net acts  as  a  unit.  Under  ordinary  circumstances  each 
member  is  responsible  for  the  action  of  the  Cabinet  as 
a  whole,  and  the  Cabinet  as  a  whole  is  responsible  for 
the  action  of  each  member.  When  the  members 
resign,  they  resign  as  a  body. 

It  must  however  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  above  de- 
scription is  that  of  the  norm  of  the  Cabinet.     Perhaps 


4  CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

at  no  time  in  its  history  has  the  actual  Cabinet  quite 
answered  to  it.  Cabinet  government  was  not  fully 
developed  until  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  at  present  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  return  to 
the  system  of  government  by  departments  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  system  of  government  by  the  Cabinet  as  a 
whole.  ^ 

In  order  to  a  full  presentation  of  our  subject,  it  is 
necessary  to  trace  the  history  of  the  Privy  Council  of 
which  the  Cabinet  is  a  committee,  the  separation  of  this 
committee  from  the  Council  as  a  whole,  the  gradual 
transfer  of  the  power  of  appointment  and  dismissal  from 
King  to  Parliament,  the  rise  in  power  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  the  accompanying  decline  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  the  development  of  the  party  system  upon 
which  Cabinet  government  is  based,  and,  finally,  so  far 
as  may  be,  the  internal  history  of  the  Cabinet. 

We  will  begin  with  the  Privy  Council.  It  was  the 
custom  of  the  Norman  kings,  as  of  all  feudal  monarchs, 
to  summon  the  great  nobles  to  meet  with  them  fre- 
quently for  purposes  of  consultation  and  advice.  By 
these  assemblies  of  the  nobles  the  feudal  state  was  held 
together.     Hence  the  King  was  even  more  anxious  to 

1  The  terms  Ministry  and  Administration  are  sometimes  used  as 
synonymous  with  Cabinet ;  but  they  are  a  little  more  comprehensive 
in- their  signification,  including  officials  standing  near  the  Cabinet, 
as  well  as  the  Cabinet  ministers. 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  5 

compel  attendance  than  the  nobles  were  to  attend. 
While  on  all  important  occasions  he  convened  as  many 
of  the  magnates  as  could  be  brought  together,  he  kept 
a  small  body  of  officials  about  him  permanently.  This-  ' 
Council  comprised  the  great  officers  of  state,  religion, 
and  the  household.  The  body  of  nobles  that  assembled 
on  special  occasions,  summoned  by  special  writ,  came 
to  be  known  as  the  Great  Council  —  Magnum  Concilium 
—  of  the  realm.  Whence,  in  later  times,  the  Parliament. 
The  smaller  body  of  officials,  the  members  of  which 
were  of  course  also  members  of  the  Great  Council,  was 
known  as  the  permanent  or  Continual  Council  —  Con- 
cilium Ordinarium.     Whence,  the  Privy  Council. 

The  Qoncilium  Ordinarium  was  composed  of  men  of 
all  variety  of  opinion,  who  were  frequently,  perhaps  gen- 
erally, violently  opposed  to  each  other.  For  it  was  not* 
considered  that  they  were  under  any  obligations  to  agree„ 
but  each  one  was  bound  to  advise  the  King  according  to* 
the  best  of  his  ability.  Hence  there  were  often  very 
stormy  sessions  of  Council,  the  divisions  in  that  body 
probably  reaching  a  climax  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI. 
Manifestly  the  King  could  not  follow  the  advice  of  all 
his  councillors,  and  he  frequently  followed  the  advice 
of  none  of  them.  Indeed,  not  until  a  late  period  in  the 
development  of  the  Cabinet  did  the  sovereign  cqijsider 
himself  under  obligations  to  ask,  much  less  to  take,  the 
advice  of  his  ministers  on  all  matters. 


6  CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

The  powers  of  this  Council  emanated  directly  from 
the  Crown,  and  consequently  were  executive  and  judi- 
cial, rather  than  legislative  and  financial.  But  in  the 
early  days  it  was  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the 
functions  of  different  bodies ;  and  when  the  King  found 
it  easier  to  get  what  he  wanted  through  the  Concilium 
Ordinarium  than  through  the  Magnum  Concilium,  he 
arranged  to  get  it  in  this  way.  So  it  came  to  pass  that 
pretty  much  the  same  things  were  done  in  the  two 
councils,  but  under  different  names.  The  King  taxed 
his  people  through  both ;  but  when  it  was  done  through 
the  Concilium  Ordinarium,  it  was  asking  for  an  aid. 
Through  the  Magnum  Concilium,  it  was  imposing  a  tal- 
lage, or  negotiating  the  concession  of  a  custom.  Legis- 
lation was  accomplished  through  the  agency  of  both 
councils ;  but  in  the  one  case  ordinances  were  said  to  be 
issued,  in  the  other  laws  to  be  enacted. 

There  was,  therefore,  a  constant  rivalry  between  the 
two  bodies,  a  feeling  that  the  Concilium  Ordinarium  was 
usurping  the  functions  of  the  Magnum  Concilium.  Nor 
was  the  hostility  lessened  when  the  latter  d-eveloped  into 
the  Parliament.  There  is  no  more  important  or  more 
interesting  feature  in  the  history  of  England  between 
1295  and  1640  than  the  struggle  between  Parliament 
and  the  King's  Council.  /  There  was  a  constant  effort  on 
the  part  of  Parliament  to  do  away  with  irregular  forms 
of  taxation  by  means  of  the  Council,  and  of  legislation 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  7 

by  ordinance.  For  example,  the  charter  confirmed  in 
1297  bound  the  King  to  levy  no  extraordinary  taxes, 
"  without  the  consent  of  the  realm,  and  to  the  common 
profit  thereof."  Yet  there  seems  to  have  been  very  little 
abatement  of  illegal  taxation,  and  the  Parliamentary 
records  of  the  period  abound  in  protests  against  it.  In 
1390  the  commons  petitioned  that  the  chancellor  and 
Council  might  not,  after  the  close  of  Parhament,  make 
any  ordinance  "  contrary  to  the  common  law  or  ancient 
customs  of  the  land,  and  the  statutes  aforetime  ordained, 
or  to  be  ordained  in  the  present  Parliament."  But  the 
King  replied  that  "  what  had  hitherto  been  done,  should 
be  done  still,  saving  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown." 
And  it  was  one  of  the  charges  brought  against  this  King, 
Richard  II.,  that  he  had  maintained  that  the  laws  were 
"  in  the  mouth  and  breast  of  the  King,"  and  that  he  by 
himself  could  change  and  frame  the  laws  of  the  kingdom. 
Down  to  the  period  of  the  civil  wars  of  the  seventeenth 
century  legislation  by  ordinance  was  common,  and  the 
matter  was  not  finally  settled  on  paper  until  the  reign 
of  Queen  Anne,  when  it  was  enacted  that  an  ordinance 
could  not  make  a  new  law,  but  could  only  add  force 
to  an  old  one. 

The  great  objection  to  government  by  Council  was  that 
it  was  government  by  a  body  responsible  to  no  one  save 
the  King.  Hence  the  effort  on  the  part  of  Parliament  to 
make  the  Council  in  some  sense   responsible  to  itself. 


8  CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Again  and  again  did  it  exert  itself  to  get  rid  of  the  indi- 
vidual minister  whom  it  found  obnoxious.  Thus  in  1233 
we  find  the  earls  and  the  barons  refusing  to  attend  Par- 
liament, and  threatening  to  deprive  Henry  III.  of  his 
crown,  unless  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  and  others  were 
dismissed  from  his  councils.  The  King  was  obliged  to 
assent  to  their  demands.^  Again,  in  131 2,  "by  the  ex- 
amination of  prelates,  earls,  barons,  knights,  and  other 
good  people  of  the  realm,  it  was  found  that  Piers  de 
Gaveston  had  evilly  counselled  the  King,"  and  had  been 
guilty  of  other  offences,  for  which  it  was  ordained  that  he 
should  be  exiled  forever.^ 

In  1376  we  have  the  first  instance  of  a  Parliamentary 
impeachment.  In  that  year  William  Latimer  and  others 
were  "  impeached  and  accused  by  the  voice  of  the  Com- 
mons for  misdealing  with  the  public  revenue,  condemned 
by  the  Lords  in  full  Parliament  to  fine  and  imprisonment, 
banished  forever  from  the  Council  at  the  request  of  the 
Commons."  * 

There  was  in  1386,  in  the  case  of  Michael  de  la  Pole, 
Earl  of  Suffolk,  a  foreshadowing  of  the  doctrine  of  joint 
ministerial  responsibility.  For  we  read  that  "  it  seemed 
to  the  King  and  to  the  Lords  of  the  ParHament  that  with 
respect  to  his  conduct  as  a  minister,  he  ought  not  to  be 

1  Parry's  "  Parliaments,"  pp.  38,  80. 

2  "  State  Trials,"  Vol.  I.  p.  22. 
8  Hatsell,  "  Precedents,"  p.  57. 


THE  PRIVY   COUNCIL  g 

impeached  without   his  colleagues   then  of  the  King's 
Council."! 

In  1388  we  have  the  first  Bill  of  Attainder.  In  that 
year,  De  la  Pole  and  three  others  were  attainted  "  for 
having  encroached  upon  the  royal  power,  excluded  good 
councillors  from  the  King's  presence,  and  for  having  been 
guilty  of  malversation  and  resistance  to  the  authority  of 
ParHament."  In  connection  with  this  there  was  a  most 
curious  scene  in  Parliament.  All  the  attainted  men  had 
fled  except  Sir  Nicholas  Brambre,  mayor  of  London. 
He,  on  being  brought  before  Parliament,  asked  the 
privilege  of  fighting  to  prove  his  innocency.  "The 
appellants,  hearing  this  courageous  challenge,"  so  runs 
the  record,  "with  resolute  countenance  answered  that 
they  would  accept  the  combat,  and  thereupon  flung  down 
their  gages  before  the  King,  and  on  a  sudden  the  whole 
company  of  Lords,  Knights,  Esquires,  and  Commons  flung 
down  their  gages  so  quick  that  they  seemed  like  snow  on 
a  winter's  day,  crying  out,  'We  also  will  accept  of  the 
combat,  and  will  prove  these  articles  to  be  true  to  thy 
head,  most  damnable  traitor.'  But  the  Lords  resolved 
that  battle  did  not  lie  in  that  case,  and  that  they  would 
examine  the  articles  touching  the  said  Nicholas,  and  take 
the  information  by  all  true,  necessary,  and  convenient 
ways,*that  their  consciences  might  be  truly  directed  what 
judgment  to  give  in  his  case  to  the  honor  of  God,  the 
1  Hatsell,  p.  58. 


\ 


10         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

advantage  and  profit  of  the  King  and  his  kingdom,  and 
as  they  would  answer  it  before  God,  according  to  the 
custom  and  the  law  of  Parliament."  ^  Brambre  was  con- 
victed and  put  to  death. 

It  would  be  easy  to  add  other  instances  in  which  Par- 
liament got  rid  of  men  whom  it  considered  evil  advisers 
of  the  Crown  or  bad  administrators.  But  to  get  rid  of  a 
bad  minister  was  one  thing.  To  insure  the  succession 
of  a  good  one,  was  quite  another  thing.  Hence,  parallel 
to  the  series  of  Parliamentary  depositions  of  royal  favor- 
ites runs  a  series  of  efforts  made  by  Parliament  to  secure 
the  power  of  appointing  the  King's  ministers,  that  so  they 
might  be  rendered  responsible  to  it :  efforts  which  at- 
tained their  greatest  successes  in  the  appointment  of  the 
twenty-four  barons  under  Henry  HI.,  and  of  the  lords 
ordainers  under  Edward  II.  ' 

Thus  the  struggle  between  the  Council,  representing 
irresponsible  royal  authority,  and  the  Parliament,  repre- 
senting more  or  less  perfectly  the  people  of  England, 
went  on,  and  England  earned  the  name  of  the  "  disloyal 
V>/^  nation,"  ^  and  continued  to  deserve  that  name  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  until  almost  by  a  series  of  happy 
accidents  she  stumbled  upon  Cabinet  government.  For 
it  has  been  the  mission  of  the  Cabinet  to  i^ite  these  war-  " 
,    ring  bodies,  so  that  they  now  work  together  in  perfect 

1  "  State  Trials,"  Vol.  I.  p.  89. 

2  Professor  Thorold  Rogers  in  North  American  Review^  Vol.  131. 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  ■      II 

harmony,  and  to  unite  them  too,  not  by  a  violent  change 
or  a  mechanical  contrivance,  but  by  a  natural,  gradual, 
almost  imperceptible  development. 

But  before  the  final  peace  was  made  there  was,  under 
the  Tudors,  a  long  cessation  from  hostilities,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  combatants  was  too  weak  to  fight, 
and  the  other  too  strong  to  care  to  do  so.  The  Tudor 
sovereigns  were  able  to  be  more  nearly  absolute  than  any 
of  their  predecessors  had  been  since  Henry  II.  The 
lofty  position  attained  by  royalty  in  the  sixteenth  century 
was  due  in  great  measure  to  the  temporary  depression  of 
the  law-making  body.  It  was  a  transition  period  in 
Parliamentary  history.  The  day  of  the  great  nobles  had 
gone.  The  day  of  the  people  had  not  yet  come.  Hence 
the  Crown  had  no  formidable  rival.  Parliament  almost 
ceased  to  be  thought  of  as  an  essential  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Under  Henry  VIII.  there  were  two  periods  of 
between  six  and  seven  years  in  which  it  did  not  meet  at 
all.  By  Elizabeth,  it  was  called  together  thirteen  times, 
and  sat  from  two  weeks  to  two  months  at  a  time.  Dur- 
ing the  whole  forty-five  years  of  her  reign  it  was  perhaps 
in  session  about  eighteen  months. 

Having  almost  dispensed  with  Parliament,  the  Tudors 
chose  to  rule  by  means  of  the  Privy  Council.  The 
period  from  1485  to  1603  may  be  considered  as  the 
period  of  government  by  Council.  The  depressed  Par- 
liament was  seemingly  almost  content  that  it  should  be 


■  12         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

SO.  There  was  no  rising  against  royal  favorites.  There 
was  not  a  single  impeachment  during  the  Tudor  period. 
^Indeed,  impeachments  belong  only  to  periods  of  struggle 
between  King  and  Parliament.  When  either  party  is 
predominant,  a  simple  dismissal  from  office  is  suffi- 
cient./ 

Not  only  was  there  peace  between  the  Tudor  councils 
and  Parliament,  but  within  the  Council  itself  there  was 
comparative  peace.  For  while  the  councils  of  Henry 
\i  VIII.  and  his  children  embraced  men  of  talent,  they 
were  completely  subservient  to  the  King.  There  was 
therefore  more  agreement  in  them  than  in  previous 
councils,  for  the  bond  of  agreement  was  that  they  should 
all  work  together  to  do  the  sovereign's  bidding.  While 
there  might  be  disagreements  at  the  Council  Board,  the 
preponderating  influence  of  the  monarch  kept  these 
from  becoming  violent.  » While  councillors  sometimes 
gave  advice  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  the  King  and  of 
each  other,  if  the  King  could  not  be  convinced,  they 
united  to  do  his  bidding,  whether  it  was  in  accordance 
j  with  their  judgment  and  desires  or  not.  ^hus  we  find 
d/  j  \he  Council  losing  in  independence,  but  gaining  tremen- 
dously in  power.  And,  in  1539,  Parliament  for  the  time  \ 
beings  surrendered  all  it  had  been  struggling  for,  by^ 
enacting  that  the  proclamations  of  the  King,  with  the 
advice  of  the  Council,  were  to  be  obeyed  and  kept 
as  acts  of  Parliament.  *  While  this  applied  only  to  the 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL     ,      i  •  \% 

reign  of  Henry  VIIL,  under  his  children  proclamations 
had  still  very  much  the  force  of  law. 

During    this    period   a   somewhat    closer   connection  / 
between   the   Council   and   Parliament   was    established/ 
by  the  fact  that  it  became  customary  for  ministers  of  |  - 
the  Crown  to  have  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.) 
Ministers  had  always  been   members  of^the  House  of 
Lords ;  for,  of  course,  in  the  early  days,  the   persons 
suitable  for  ministerial  office  would  be  found  only  among 
the  Lords.     But  their  presence  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons  was  looked  upon  with  considerable  suspicion.    They  I 
were  not  considered  as  a  means  for  increasing  the  power  \ 
of  the  Lower  House,  but  rather  as  agents  through  whom     ) 
its  liberties  might  be  endangered.     In  a  Parliamentary 
debate,  in  1 6 14,  it  was  stated  that  "anciently  no  privy 
councillor,  nor  any  that  took  livery  of  the  King,  was  ever 
chosen  to  the  House  of  Commons."^     But  gradually, 
under  the  Tudors,  ministers  were  employed  who  sat  in 
the  Commons,  and  acted  as  a  means  of  communication   i 
between  the  Crown  and  the  Lower  House.     Henry  VHL 
required   that  the  speaker  should  look  after  the  royal 
interests.^     Under  the  children  of  Henry  VIH.  it  be- 
came the  custom  to  have  a  number  of  officers  of  state 
and  members  of  the   Privy  Council   in  the  House  of 
Commons.      But   they  were   not,  on  account   of  their 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  I.  col.  1163. 

2  Stubbs,  "  Lectures  on  Mediaeval  and  Modern  History,"  p.  272. 


14         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

official  position,  considered  as  in  any  sense  leaders 
of  the  Commons.  Nor  had  they  been  appointed  to 
their  official  positions  because  they  were  already  leading 
the  Commons.  They  were  in  the  Lower  House  to  in- 
crease the  power  of  the  Crown,  and  were  introduced  on 
'the  same  principle  that  the  Tudors  added  to  constitu- 
encies and  tampered  with  the  electorate,  in  order  to 
secure  the  election  of  candidates  favorable  to  their 
own  schemes.  \  Both  the  ministers  and  the  House  under- 
f  stood  this  to  be  the  state  of  affairs.  Thus  the  very 
\  thing  that  was  ultimately  to  make  the  Commons  all- 
powerful  in  the  state  was,  for  the  time  being,  an  instru- 
ment for  increasing  their  subserviency. 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.  an  attempt  was  also 
made  to  increase  the  power  of  ministers  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  by  the  "  Act  for  placing  the  Lords."  Accord- 
ing to  this  the  chancellor,  the  treasurer,  the  lord  privy 
seal,  and  the  president  of  the  Council  were,  if  peers, 
to  take  precedence  of  all  other  peers,  and  the  King's 
secretary,  if  a  bishop  or  a  baron,  was  to  rank  above  all 
other  bishops  and  barons. 
j  That  pecuHar  development  of  the  Privy  Council, 
known  as  the  Star  Chamber,  became  very  prominent 
'  under  the  Tiidors,  and  still  more  so  under  the  early 
Stuarts.  It  tias  been  supposed  by  some  that  this  was  a 
new  court,  established  by  an  act  of  Henry  VH.,  which 
granted  it  jurisdiction  in  certain  cases,  —  maintenance. 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  1 5 

seisin,  giving  of  livery,  having  retainers,  embracery, 
jurors  receiving  money,  untrue  demeanors  of  sheriffs  in 
false  returns   and   panels.     But   Sir   Edward  Coke  and 

Lord  Howard,  chief  justices  of  England  under  James  I., 

* 

decided  that  "  the  court  subsisted  by  ancient  prescrip- 
tion, and  had  neither  essence  nor  subsistence  by  act 
of  Parliament."  In  fact,  the  old  Concihum  Ordinarium 
had  both  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction ;  but  the  civil 
jurisdiction  had  been  for  the  most  part  deputed  to  other 
coujts,  —  those  of  Exchequer,  Chancery,  and  Requests, 
while  the  criminal  jurisdiction  was  retained  in  the  court 
of  Star  Chamber.  As  the  daughter  courts  of  Chancery 
and  Requests  were  courts  of  civil  equity,  so  the  mother 
court  of  Star  Chamber  became  a  court  of  criminal 
equity,  although  until  jthe  reign  of  Mary  it  exercised 
some  civil  jurisdiction.  This  is  the  view  taken  of  it 
by  Bacon,  who  says  that  "  as  the  Chancery  had  the 
praetorian  power  for  equity,  so  the  Star  Chamber  had 
the  censorian  power  for  offences  under  the  degree  of 
capital."  ^ 

1  Bacon,  "  History  of  Henry  VII."  Works  edited  by  Spedding, 
Ellis,  and  Heath,  Vol.  VI.  p.  85. 

Lord  Somers  thus  characterizes  the  Star  Chamber :  "  The  Star 
Chamber  was  but  a  spawn  of  our  Council,  and  was  called  so  only 
•  because  it  sat  in  the  usual  Council  Chamber.  It  was  set  up  as  a 
formal  court  in  Henry  VII.  in  very  soft  words:  to  punish  great 
riots,  to  restrain  offenders  too  big  for  ordinary  justice ;  or,  in  the 
modern  phrase,  to  preserve  the  public  peace;  but  in  a  little  time 


1 6         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

I  Under  the  Stuart  kings  the  power  of  the  Council 
dedined  rapidly.  This  was  due,  in  the  first  place,  to 
the  fact  that  the  House  of  Commons  had  grown  strong 

(  enough  to  make  itself  heard.  During  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  it  was  evident  that  the 
Lower  House  was  becoming  a  powerful  element  in  the 
state ;  but  the  personal  popularity  and  good  sense  of  | 
the  Queen  prevented  serious  trouble.  But  after  her 
death  James  I.  came  to  the  throne,  and  as  Boling- 
broke  says,  "affected  the  minds  of  men  with  that  epi- 
demical taint  .  .  .  the  divine  right  of  kings,  divine 
right  of  bishops,  sacredness  of  the  person  of  kings, 
and  so  forth,  which,  taken  together,  composed  such  a 
system  of  absurdity  as  had  never  been  heard  in  this 
country  until  that  anointed  pedant  broached  them."  ^ 
By  his  advocacy  of  these  doctrines  the  King  put  him- 
self in  a  position  to  excite  the  special  antagonism  of 
the  Commons.  As  a  consequence,  their  first  address 
to  him  distinctly  denies  his  absolute  power  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  by  implication  at  least  denies  his 
absolute    power    in    other    matters.       "Your     Majesty 

it  made  the  nation  tremble.  The  Privy  Council  came  at  last  to 
make  laws  by  proclamation,  and  the  Star  Chamber  ruined  those 
that  would  not  obey.  At  last  they  both  fell  together."  Minutes 
of  Lord  Somers's  speech  on  Privy  Council  of  Scotland  in  "  Hard- 
wicke  State  Papers." 

1  Bolingbroke,  "  On   the   State  of  Parties   at  the  Accession  of 
George  I." 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  1 7 

would   be   misinformed,"  so    this    address   ran,  "  if  any 
man  should    deliver   that   the   kings   of  England   have 
any  absolute   power  in  themselves,  >^ither  to  alter   reli- 
gion,  or    to    make    any   laws    concerning    the    same,  \ 
otherwise   than   as   in   temporal   causes   by  consent   of   I 
Parliament."  ^ 

Hostilities  between  executive   and   legislative   having  ) 
been  thus    reopened,    they   continued   until   peace  was  i 
made    through    the    Cabinet.      Again    Parliament    put  \ 
forth   strenuous  efforts   to  control   the  ministers  of  the 
Crown.      The   impeachment  of  ministers   was   revived. 
The  case  of  Bacon,  who  was  accused  of  malversation, 
is  not  so  much  a  case  in  point ;  but  Buckingham  was  " 
impeached  distinctly  for  making  use  of  his  position  as 
a  minister  to  give  bad  advice   to  the   Crown.      Minis- 
terial responsibility  to  Parliament  was  the  principle  for 
which   Sir   John   Eliot    contended    more   than   for   any 
other.     Before  the  arrest  of  the  five  members,  Charles  I.    ■ 
promised   to  govern   "  by  the   advice  of  two   or   three 
persons,  acceptable  to  the  Commons." 

At  the  very  time  when  the  altered  spirit  of  Parlia-  ; 
ment  made  it  dangerous  to  the  King,  the  growing  exi-  , 
gencies  of  the  times  made  it  necessary.  It  was  not  so 
easy  to  dispense  with  parliaments,  and  govern  through 
councils  as  it  had  been.  More  money  was  needed 
than  formerly,  for  two  sources  of  revenue  —  the  plunder 
'  Prepared  but  not  presented. 


1 8         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

of  •  the  Church,  and  the  feudal  dues  —  were  almost  ex- 
hausted. Nor  were  the  Stuarts  as  economical  as  Eliza- 
beth had  been.  Moreover,  the  need  of  a  standing 
army  was  beginning  to  be  felt,  and  as  the  people  were 
manifesting  a  stronger  dislike  to  irregular  methods  of 
taxation  than  ever  before,  ParUament  was  almost  indis- 
pensable. 

Not  only  the  greater  strength  of  ParHament,  but  the 
growing  inadequacy  of  the  Council  made  it  evident 
that  the  former  must  increase,  while  the  latter  de- 
creased.     For   the   Council   had   to   contend   not  only/ 


7 


against   attacks  from  without,  but  also   against  interna 
weaknesses.      In   the  first    place,  at   a   time  when   th6 
questions  of  the  day   required  especially   efficient   men 
to  cope  with  them,  the  Council  was  made  up  of  espe- 
cially  inefficient    men.      There    were    giants   who    sat 
around  the  council   table   of  Elizabeth,  but   such   men 
were  not  often  to  be  found  among  the  advisers  of  her 
successor.     In  the  second   place,  the   large  number  of 
persons  in  the  councils  of  the  Stuarts  was  a  source  of 
weakness.     It   was   soon   found   that   there  were   many  \ 
things  which  it  was  impossible  to  bring  before  so  large     \ 
an  assembly.     If  all  state  affairs  were  to  be   discussed 
in  the  Council,  its   numbers   must   be   reduced,  and  it 
must   be   frequently  reconstituted.      Hence,  under  the  j 
Stuarts,    there   was    generally    an   interior    council,!  of  /' 
which  we  shall  hear  more  later. \    In   the   third   place,/ 


THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL  1 9 

the  kings  themselves,  in  their  desire  for  personal  gov- 
ernment, did  much  to  weaken  the  Council,  and  often 
drove  their  councillors  to  take  sides  with  the  Commons. 
For  example,  with  the  exception  of  Bolingbroke,  the 
entire  Council  of  James  I.  was  violently  opposed  to 
the  King's  Spanish  policy. 

Thus,  hard  pressed  on  all  sides,  the  Privy  Council 
was  weakening.  The  extra  efforts  which  it  was  putting 
forth  in  some  directions  served  but  to  indicate  the 
desperation  of  a  dying  cause. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   FIRST   STEP  TOWARD   CABINET   GOVERNMENT 

The  Cabinet  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  —  Gradual  separa- 
tion of  small  number  of  privy  councillors  from  the  rest  —  Hos- 
tility of  Parliament  thereby  increased  —  Early  use  of  the  term 
Cabinet  Council  —  Attempts  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  ap- 
point the  councillors  and  to  hold  them  responsible  —  Claren- 
don's Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  —  Precedents  for  it  —  Its 
composition  and  powers  —  Relation  to  the  Privy  Council  — 
Relation  to  Parliament  —  Impeachment  of  ministers  by  Parlia- 
ment —  Clarendon  keeps  his  position  through  favor  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  spite  of  the  displeasure  of  the  King.  —  A  number  of 
ministers,  but  no  ministry  —  No    acknowledged  First  Minister 

—  The  King  de  facto  and  de  Jure  head  of  government  —  Una- 
nimity in  the  Cabinet  not  required  —  Ministers  do  not  resign 
when  their  advice  is  not  taken  — Ministers   not  always  consulted 

—  The  King  has  advisers  other  than  the  ministers  —  Develop- 
ment of  the  idea  of  a  ministry  as  shown  in  the  impeachments  of 
Clarendon  and  Danby. 

I  HAVE  said  that  the  Cabinet  is  a  committee  of  the 
Privy  Council.  The  Privy  Council  now  numbering 
about  two  hundred  is  still  the  sole  legal  adviser  of  the 
Crown.  Although  this  large  body  no  longer  holds 
deliberative  sessions,  and  its  functions  are  merely  of  a 

20 


THE  FIRST  STEP  21 

formal  executive  nature,  it  is  legally  only  in  virtue 
of  his  position  as  a  privy  councillor  that  the  Cabinet 
minister  has  a  voice  in  the  administration.  Simply 
as  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  he  is  bound  by  no  oath 
or  declaration  of  secrecy,  for  the  only  oath  required  of 
him  is  that  of  the  privy  councillor. 

The  first  step  in  the  development  of  the  Cabinet 
was  naturally  the  altogether  informal  separation  by^ 
the  sovereign  of  a  small  number  of  the  Privy  Council 
from  the  rest,  that  he  might  discuss  some  of  the  more 
important  affairs  of  state  with  them,  before  bringing 
them  before  the  whole  Board.  This,  as  a  settled  and 
permanent  arrangement,  was  accomplished  gradually. 
Doubtless  there  had  always  been  royal  favorites,  to  whom 
more  was  intrusted  than  to  ordinary  councillors. 
Bacon  tells  us  that  "  King  Henry  the  Seventh  of  Eng- 
land, in  his  greatest  business,  imparted  himself  to  none, 
except  it  were  to  Morton  and  Fox."^  Henry  VIH., 
too,  had  a  tendency  to  consult  with  a  certain  number 
of  councillors  rather  than  with  the  whole  body.  Indeed, 
he  adopted  the  practice  of  appointing  what  were  known 
as  "  ordinary  councillors,"  with  the  distinct  understand- 
ing that  they  were  rarely,  if  ever,  to  be  consulted. 
Their  position  was  hardly  more  than  honorary.  Again, 
in  the  Council  of  Edward  VI.,  there  was  a  political 
committee   of    eight   chosen   out    of  a  body   of  forty. 


1  Bacon,  "  On  Council.' 

\ 


%^ 


22         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

But  it   was   the   Stuart   kings  who   made   this   plan   of 

intrusting  the  entire  government  to  a  very  few  persons 

a  settled  policy.     Under  James  I.  complaints  were  made 

that  the  government  was  run  entirely  JDy  a  few  friends 

of  the  King. 

,      Indeed,   this    first    step    increased   rather   than    di- 

I 

'  minished   the    enmity  between  the  executive   and   the 

legislative.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  why  it  should 
have  done  so.  Parliament  naturally  thought  that 
the  Council  as  a  whole  was  less  likely  to  encroach 
upon  its  interests  than  were  a  small  number  of  irre- 
sponsible royal  favorites  probably  chosen  simply  because 
they  might  be  counted  upon  to  support  any  tyrannical 
schemes  which  the  King  had  set  his  heart  upon.  It 
was  at  this  stage  in  the  development  that  Bacon  pointed 
out  the  evils  of  this  system  of  government  in  the  fa- 
miliar passage,  in  which  he  tells  us  that  because  of  the 
inconvenience  caused  by  a  large  council,  "the  doc- 
trine of  Italy  and  the  custom  of  France  in  some  kings' 
times  hath  introduced  Cabinet  councils,  a  remedy  worse 
than  the  disease,  which  hath  turned  Metis  the  wife  into 
Metis  the  mistress,  that  is,  councils  of  state  to  which 
princes  are  married  to  councils  of  favored  persons, 
recommended  chiefly  by  flattery  and  affection."  ^ 

In  spite  of  Bacon's  protest  the  practice  was  kept  up, 
and   hardened  into   a  custom.       But  custom   did   not 
1  Bacon,  "On  Council." 


THE  FIRST  STEP  23 

make  the  bearing  of  this  system  by  Parliament  "  a  prop- 
erty of  easiness."  Protests  were  frequent.  One  of 
the  grounds  of  impeachment  brought  against  Bucking- 
ham was  that,  by  holding  so  many  offices,  he  had 
acquired  more  weight  in  the  councils  of  the  King  than 
was  proper  for  any  one  man.  And  Sir  Robert  Cotton 
said  in  Parliament  that  the  Commons  desired  that  the 
King  would  "  advise  with  his  servants  together,  and  not 
be  led  by  young  and  ignorant  counsel."  ^ 

It  is  in  Clarendon's  "  History  of  the  Rebellion  "  that  ^ 
we  first  read  of  an  English  Cabinet  council.^  There 
we  learn  that  at  the  time  that  the  peers  met  at  York, 
"  the  bulk  and  burden  of  state  affairs,  together  with 
the  envy  attendant  upon  them,"  rested  principally 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
Strafford,  and  Cottington.  Motives  of  convenience 
and  expediency,  however,  induced  the  King  to  add  a> 
few  others  to  those  whom  he  would  probably  so  gladly  \ 
have  made  his  sole  advisers.  Clarendon  enumerates  * 
these  others,  together  with  the  reasons  for  choosing 
them.  Thus  the  Earl  of  Northumberland  was  ornamen- 
tal, the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  was  chosen  for  his 
place,  being  Lord  High  Treasurer  of  England ;  the  two 
secretaries.  Sir  Harry  Vane  and  Sir  Francis  Winnibanke, 
"  for   service   and  communication  of  intelligence,"  and 

1  "State  Trials,"  Vol.  II.  p.  1272. 

2  Clarendon,  "  History  of  Rebellion,"  Vol.  II.  p.  99. 


24        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

lastly,  "  the  Marquis  of  Hamilton  indeed  by  his  skill  and 
interest  bore  as  great  a  part  as  he  had  a  mind  to  do, 
and,"  the  historian  adds  somewhat  facetiously,  "  he  had 
the  skill  to  meddle  no  further  than  he  had  a  mind." 
"These  persons,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "made  up  the 
committee  of  state,  which  was  reproachfully  afterward 
called  the  Junto,  and  enviously  then  in  court  the 
Cabinet  Council,  who  were,  on  all  occasions,  when 
the  secretaries  received  any  extraordinary  intelligence, 
or  as  often  otherwise  as  were  thought  fit,  to  meet; 
whereas  the  body  of  the  Council  observed  set  days  and 
hours  for  their  meetings,  and  came  not  else  together 
unless  specially  summoned." 

It  is  Clarendon  also  who  tells  us  that  the  practice  of 
making  honorary  councillors  had  made  the  Council  so 
large,  that  "  for  that  and  other  reasons  of  incompetency 
committees  of  dexterous  men  have  been  appointed  out 
of  the  tables  to  do  the  business  of  it."  Among  the 
"  Hardwicke  State  Papers  "  are  to  be  found  the  minutes 
of  a  Cabinet  council  held  August  i6,  1640.^  Nine,  per- 
haps ten,  persons,  besides  the  King,  are  mentioned  as 
taking  part  in  the  discussion.  Again,  Clarendon  tells  us, 
that,  in  1643,  the  King  created  a  junto,  "  consisting  of  the 
Duke  of  Richmond,  Lord  Cottington,  the  two  secretaries 
of  state,  and  Sir  John  Colepepper."  To  this  Clarendon 
himself  was   added   much  to  Colepepper's   displeasure. 

1  "  Hardwicke  State  Papers,"  Vol.  II.  p.  142. 


/ 


THE  FIRST  STEP  2$ 

In  this  junto  all  matters  were  discussed,  before  they  were    i 
brought  to  the  Council  Board.^  ' 

^    One  of  the  charges  brought  against  Strafford  was  "  dis-« 
courses  of  his,  in  committees  of  state,  which  they  call  the* 
Cabinet  Council."     The  remonstrance  of  1682  complains  • 
of  "managing  of  the  great  affairs  of  state  in  Cabinet • 
Councils,  by  men  unknown,  and  not  publicly  trusted."  ^  i^ 
The  "  Humble  Petition  and  Advice  "  of  the  same  year^ 
endeavored  to  secure  Parliamentary  control  of  the  minis-% 
ters,  by  requesting  that  none  should  be  members  of  the 
Privy  Council,  except  such  persons  as  were  approve*d  by 
both  houses.     And,  as  recent  experience  had  taught  that 
not  even  the  appointment  of  the  Privy  Council^  insured 
control  over   the   policy  of  the   administration,  it  was 
further  requested  that  "no  public  act  concerning  the 
affairs   of  the    kingdom   proper   for  the   Privy   Council 
should  be  esteemed  of  any  validity  as  proceeding  from 
the  royal  authority,  unless  done  by  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  major  part  of  the  Council,  attested  under 
their  hands."     The  granting  of  this  clause  of  the  petition 
I  would  have  introduced  a  state  of  things  not  unknown  to 
1  English  history.     It  would  have  been  merely  a  revival  of 
1  what  was  a  regular  custom  during  the  reign  of  Henry  V. 
For  every  act  of  his  Council  "  was  written  on  a  separate 
paper,  and  signed  by  all  the  members  present,  except  the 

1  Clarendon,  "Autobiography,"  Vol.  I.  p.  85. 
•  2  Clarendon,  "  History  of  the  Rebellion,"  Vol.  II.  p.  537. 


'-> 


t  26)        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

"""officers."  ^     And  as  it  is  not  the  first  time  that  we  hear 

of  this  method  of  endeavoring  to  secure  the  responsibiUty 

*of  councillors,  so  it  is  not  the  last.     For  this  article  of 

*the  "  Humble  Petition  and  Advice  "  was  incorporated  in 

*the  Act  of  Settlement  of  1700. 

*  During  the  period  of  the  Commonwealth  the  con- 
troversy slept.  Cromwell  made  no  attempt  to  form  a 
cabinet.  Both  legislation  and  administration  were  ac- 
complished largely  by  means  of  committees. 

In  the  burst  of  loyalty  which  followed  the  Restoration, 
it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  Parliament  to  make 
any  vigorous  attempts  to  secure  the  power  to  nominate 
the  ministers  of  the  Crown.  We  do,  however,  find 
Broderick  writing  May  16,  1660,  "This  day  I  dined 
with  the  Speaker  and  the  President  of  the  Council,  and, 
debating  a  motion  made  by  Sir  Walter  Earle,  that  the 
great  ©fficers  of  the  natif n  tught  t*  be  chfsen  by  Parlia- 
ment, I  found  the  President,  after  a  declaration  of  loyalty 
to  his  Majesty,  and  regard  to  my  Lord  Chancellor  and 
Lord  Lieutenant,  positively  of  the  opinion  that  neither 
would  be  allowed  these  capacities.  A  strange  distinction 
indeed*  he  made  that  they  should  never  inquire  into  the 
person  of  the  Lord  Treasurer,  or  of  any  other  officer, 
relating  to  the  King's  person  or  his  power,  or  of  any 
ministerial  officer ;  but  of  the  judicial  the  general  sense 
of  the  Council  and  of  all  the  grave  men  was  to  present 

1  "  Proceedings  of  the  Privy  Council,"  Vol.  II.  p.  26. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  27 

such  to  the  King  as  they  thought  agreeable  to  the  place, 
and  for  the  chahcellorship,  if  his  Majesty  chose  to  con- 
fer it  upon  Sir  Orlando  Bridgman,  or  Sir  Geoffrey 
Palmer  they  should  all  be  abundantly  satisfied."^ 

At  first  sight  it  would  appear  as  though  there  were  no 
principle  involved  in  the  disposition  indicated  in  this 
passage  to  distinguish  between  the  chancellor  and  other 
ministers ;  that  it  was  purely  personal,  and  was  actuated 
simply  by  a  desire  to  keep  Sir  Edward  Hyde  out  of  the 
chancellorship.  It  has,  however,  been  suggested  that  it 
arose  from  the  feeling  that  the  man  who  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  law  in  England  should  not  have  a  political 
character.^  If  there  be  any  truth  in  this  suggestion,  it  is 
an  illustration  of  the  curious  inversion  of  things  which 
has  taken  place  during  the  last  two  centuries.  It  is  of 
cours^  still  possible  for  an  official  appointed  by  Parlia- 
ment to  have  no  political  character ;  but  the  last  way  to 
deprive  a  pubHc  officer  of  a  poHtical  character  which  he 
already  possessed  would  be  to  put  his  appointment  into 
the  hands  of  Parliament. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  grounds  of  the  Lord 
President's  suggestion,  it  was  not  acted  upon,  and  for  the 
first  seven  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  Hyde,  who 
was  soon  made  Earl  of  Clarendon,  was  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  the  principal  man  in  the  realm.     Burnet  describes 

1  Lister,  "Life  of  Clarendon,"  Vol.  XL  p.  364. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  4. 


28         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

him  as  "an  absolute  favorite,  and  the  first  anu  only 
minister,  but  in  too  magnificent  a  way."^  His  own 
writings  have  made  us  fairly  acquainted  with  this  man, 
and  we  know  that  he  was  not  in  all  respects  fitted  for  the 
position  of  first  and  only  minister  to  the  restored  mon- 
arch. He  could  not  realize  that  the  England  to  which 
he  had  returned  was  quite  different  from  the  England 
which  he  had  left.  He  did  not  wish  to  infringe  upon  the 
old  Constitution  which  he  understood  ;  but  he  did  not  care 
to  help  on  the  new  Constitution,  which  was  in  process  of 
formation,  and  which  he  did  not  understand.  The  abso- 
lutism of  Elizabeth  seemed  to  him  a  desirable  thing ;  the 
absolutism  of  Louis  XIV.  he  would  not  have  dreamed  of 
aiming  at.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  whik  the  first  Parlia- 
ment of  Charles  H.  would  have  been  willing  to  have 
voted  larger  supplies,  the  chancellor  did  not  ask  for 
more  because  he  had  no  mind  to  make  the  King  inde- 
pendent of  Parliament.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
Charles  complained  of  the  criticism  of  administration 
which  went  on  in  the  coffee-houses.  Clarendon  proposed 
that  either  a  royal  proclamation  should  be  issued,  forbid- 
ding the  people  to  frequent  these  places,  or  that  spies 
should  be  placed  in  them  to  give  information  with  respect 
to  any  seditious  conversations  which  might  take  place. 
A  few  years  later  the  King  made  an  attempt  to  act  upon 
the  former  of  these  suggestions. 

1  Burnet,  "  History  of  my  Own  Times,"  Vol.  I.  p.  62. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  29 

Yel',  unconsciously  to  himself,  one  of  Clarendon's  first 
advices  to  the  King  was  a  help  to  that  constitutional) 
development  which  he  would  so  gladly  have  retarded. j 
He  saw  that  if  consultation  with  the  Privy  Council 
as  a  whole  had  been  impracticable  under  the  early 
Stuarts,  it  was  much  more  so  now.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  Charles  had  retained  all  the  surviving  mem- 
bers of  his  father's  Council,  and,  out  of  thirty, 
twelve  had  borne  arms  against  the  King.  Mani- 
festly, it  was  not  desirable  to  intrust  all  the  affairs 
of  state  to  an  assembly  so  constituted.  In  the 
second  place,  Clarendon  mentions  with  regret  that 
the  King  disliked  to  listen  to  debates  in  Council ; 
he  preferred  to  have  matters  settled  quickly  with 
less  talk.  And,  in  the  third  place,  there  was  no 
longer  any  necessity  for  consulting  members  learned 
in  the  law,  for  the  Long  Parliament,  by  abolishing 
the  court  of  Star  Chamber,  had  deprived  the  Council 
of  its  judicial  functions,  thus  making  it  a  purely 
political  body.  These  considerations  led  Clarendon 
to  advise  the  King  to  choose  out  various  committees 
from  among  the  councillors,  and  instead  of  con- 
sulting with  the  Council  as  a  whole  in  all  affairs  of 
state,  to  bring  each  matter  as  it  came  up  before  its 
appropriate  committee.  Four  such  committees  were 
proposed,  —  one  for  foreign  affairs,  one  for  the  admi- ; 
ralty,    navy,    and    military    affairs,    one    for     receiving ; 


\ 


30         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

petitions    of    complaint    and    grievance,    and   one    for 
trade.^ 

There  was  nothing  really  new  in  this.  There  never 
is  anything  new  in  English  history.  The  English  states- 
man can  always  find  a  precedent  for  all  that  he  does. 
As  for  the  precedents  which  Clarendon  might  have 
found,  it  is  probable  that  the  Council  had  always  done 
some  of  its  work  through  committees.  The  conven- 
ience of  the  system  must  have  recommended  it.  In 
1555  we  have  reg;ulations  providing  for  such  an  arrange- 
ment, and  in  1620-162 1  we  find  in  existence  a  commit- 
tee of  the  Council  for  war  and  one  for  foreign  affairs. 
In  connection  with  Clarendon's  committee,  we  are  told 
that  "besides  the  estabhshed  committees,  if  anything 
extraordinary  happens  which  requires  advice,  his  Maj- 
esty's meaning  and  intention  is  that  particular  com- 
mittees be  in  such  instances  appointed  for  them,  as 
hath  been  before  accusto77iedy 
I     It  is  not  certain  that  all  the  committees  advised  by 

/  Clarendon  were  actually  organized,  but  the  Committee 

;  of  Foreign  Affairs  was,  and  it  was  by  no  means  confined 
to  foreign  affairs.     To  it  all  matters  of  importance  were 

j  intrusted  before  they  were  brought  before  the  Council. 

I  It  was  the  continuation  of  the   Cabinet  of  Charles  I. 
—  a  little  more  definite   shape   having   been   given  to 

1  Lister,   "  Life   of  Clarendon,"  Vol.  II.  p.  6.     Coxa,  "  Institu- 
tions of  English  Government,"  p.  648. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  3 1 

it.      It   consisted   originally  of  the   chancellor   hirhself, 
Ormond,   Southampton,   Monk,   Nicholas,   and  Morrice. 
As   the    chancellor's   influence   was    paramount    at   the 
time  of  selection,  it  might  have  been  supposed  that  he 
would  have  secured  a  very  harmonious  committee,  all    , 
of  his  own  way  of  thinking.     And  indeed  he  was  tol-    ■ 
erably  successful   in  doing  this.     Seven  years  later  he    , 
himself  made  the  statement  that  at  first  they  were  "  all   / 
•  of  one  mind  in  matters  of  importance  ;  but  after  two 
years  the  King  added  others  of  different  judgments  and 
principles  in  Church  and  State."  ^     Yet,  as  must  always 
me  the  case,  motives  of  policy  and  the  desire  to  con- 
ciliate various  parties  had  much  to  do  with    the  selec- 
tion  of  even   this   committee.      Therefore   it   was   not 
altogether  homogeneous  or  altogether  pleasing  to  either  ; 
the  King  or  the  chancellor.     Thus  the  King  liked  nei- 
ther Southampton  nor  Nicholas,  although  he  seems  to 
have   had    a  certain    amount   of    confidence    in   them. 
They  were  both  friends  of  Clarendon.     On  the  other 
hand,    Monk   and    Morrice   were    not   admirers    of  the 
chancellor.     But,  on  the  whole,  the  Clarendon  influence  / 
predominated.  ' 

In  the  State  Paper  Office  are  to  be  seen  Nicholas's 
Minutes  of  the  meetings  of  this  committee  during  the 
first  year  after  the  Restoration  —  meetings  which,  in  the 
beginning,  Roger  North  tells  us  "  were  but  of  the  nature 

1  "  State  Trials,"  Vol.  VI.  p.  376. 


)^ 


32         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

of  private  conversations,  but  then  came  to  be  formal 
councils."  ^  They  took  place  at  first  every  Monday  and 
Thursday  in  the  chancellor's  room,  but  later  only  once 
a  weekj  on  Sunday.^  In  the  morning  the  great  officers 
of  state  accompanied  the  King  to  divine  service,  and 
in  the  evening  they  waited  upon  him  for  consultation  in 
state  affairs.  This  practice  continued  during  several  reigns. 
Thus,  in  1660,  a  definite  form  was  given  to  an  ar- 
rangement which  had  been  tried  before  at  intervals, 
but  which  was  destined  from  that  time  on  to  be  a 
permanency.  For  ever  since  Clarendon's  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs  was  organized,  with  the  slight  exception 
of  the  short  time  in  which  Sir  William  Temple's  scheme 
was  being  tried,  —  and  it  will  be  shown  later  .that  even 
this  was  not  an  exception,  —  the  government  of  England 
has  been  in  the  hands  of  a  few  persons  rather  than  in 
those  of  the  whole  Council.  Affairs  of  state  were 
directed  by  a  committee  of  which  Clarendon  was  at 
the  head,  or  appeared  to  the  nation  to  be  at  the  head, 
until  1667.  From  that  time  until  1672  we  have  the 
rule  of  the  odious  Cabal,  and  then  the  Danby  admin- 
istration. During  all  these  years  Cabinet  government, 
which  it  must  never  be  forgotten  meant  at  this  stage 
government  by  favorites,  was  growing  more  and  more 
unpopular,  and  after  the  fall  of  Danby,  in  1679,  the  King 

1  "  Lives  of  the  Norths,"  p.  348.     Bohn  Library. 

2  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  Vol.  IV.  p.  87.    Ed.  1857. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  33 

awoke  to  the  fact  that  something  must  be  done  to  make 
the  administration  more  acceptable  to  the  nation,  and 
therefore  called  Sir  William  Temple  to  his  assistance. 

Before  investigating  Temple's  scheme,  let  us  pause  to 
inquire  what  the  Cabinet  was  at  this,  the  first  stage  of 
its  development.  It  had,  of  course,  by  no  means  th^ 
assured  position  and  the  all-controlhng  power  that  ir 
has  now.  The  choosing  out  of  a  small  committee  fo? 
special  consultation  did  not  deprive  other  privy  coun- 
cillG^rs  of  their  position  as  de  jure  advisers  to  the  Crown 
—  a  position  which  they  still  hold.  But  for  a  time  they 
remained  also  advisers  de  facto.  In  creating  his  Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Affairs,  Clarendon  did  not  intend  to 
reduce  the  Privy  Council  to  a  nonentity.  For  greater 
expedition,  and  also  for  greater  freedom  of  discussion, 
matters  were  to  be  brought  before  this  committee  first. 
But  they  were  afterward  brought  either  in  whole  or  in 
part  before  the  Council.  Clarendon  made  the  state- 
ment that  "the  Cabinet  never  transacted  anything  of 
importance  (his  Majesty  always  being  present)  without 
presenting  the  same  first  to  the  Council  Board."  ^ 

Nor  was  this  presentation  merely  formal.  From  the 
discussion  which  took  place  over  the  sale  of  Dunkirk, 
we  see  that  the  Council  had  by  no  means  renounced 
its  deliberative  functions.  Clarendon  says  that,  in  the 
first  place,  the  sale  was  debated  "  in  the  committee  to 

1  "  State  Trials,"  Vol.  VI.  p.  376. 


34         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

which  the  King  intrusted  his  secret  affairs."  Clarendon 
himself  was  ill.  The  committee  met  at  his  house.  He 
knew  nothing  about  the  matter  beforehand.  After  it 
had  been  fully  discussed  those  present  agreed  to  the 
sale,  but  the  King  decided  not  to  come  to  a  positive 
resolution  until  he  had  laid  the  proposition  before  the 
Council.  This  was  done,  and  "after  a  long  debate  of 
the  whole  matter  before  the  Council  Board,  where  all 
was  averred  concerning  the  uselessness  and  worthless- 
ness  of  the  place  by  those  w)io  had  said  it  at  the  com- 
mittee," but  one  man  —  the  Earl  of  St.  Albans  —  was 
opposed  to  the  sale.^ 

It  is  probable  that  for  some  time  everything  which 
it  was  deemed  safe  to  discuss  in  the  Council  was  dis- 
cussed there,  including  some  things  which,  like  the  sale 
of  Dunkirk,  it  was  deemed  not  safe  not  to  discuss  there ; 
matters  in  which,  from  their  importance,  combined  with 
the  impossibility  of  keeping  them  secret,  the  King  and 
his  ministers  hardly  dared  to  act  on  their  own  author- 
ity. Yet  the  meetings  of  the  Council  for  deliberative 
purposes  must  have  grown  less  and  less  frequent.  And, 
when  in  1679  the  King  dismissed  his  privy  councillors 
in  order  to  make  room  for  the  operation  of  Sir  Will- 
iam Temple's  scheme,  he  said :  "  His  Majesty  thanks 
you  for  all  the  good  advices  which  you  have  given  him, 
which  might  have  been  more  frequent  if  the  great  num- 
^  Clarendon,  "  Autobiography,"  Vol.  I.  p.  456. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  .35 

bers  of  the  Council  had  not  made  it  unfit  for  the  secrecy 
and  despatch  of  business.  This  forced  him  to  use  a^\ 
smaller  number  of  you  in  a  foreign  committee,  and' 
sometimes  the  advice  of  some  few  among  them  upon 
such  oc€asions  for  many  years  past."  ^  It  must  be  added 
that  probably  to  make  the  calling  together  of  the  Coun-  \ 
cil  the  more  impracticable,  Charles  II.  greatly  increased  j 
its  numbers. 

More  important  than  the  relations  of  the  ministers  to 
the  Councilwere  their  relations  to  Parliament.  Herejj 
we  find  the  essential  difference  between  the  embryonic 
cabinets  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  full-grown 
Cabinet  of  the  nineteenth  century.  For  like  their  prede- 
cessors. Clarendon's  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  j 
its  successors,  were  not  regarded  by  Parliament  as  its    *\ 

leaders,  but  as  its  enemies.     Indeed,  the  Parliaments  of 

-I 

the  seventeenth  century  were  useful  to  the  nation,  not  \ 
as  they  followed  where  the  ministers  led,  but  in  pro-  ) 
portion  as  they  held  a  check  upon  them.  Both  in 
theory  and  in  practice  there  was  separation  between 
the  executive  and  the  legislative.  To  say  that  the  min- 
ister was  in  any  sense  responsible  to  Parhament,  was  an 
affront  to  the  King.  Thus  Roger  North  tells  us  that 
in  1683  Secretary  Jenkins  was  told  that  he  would  be 
accused  by  the  House  ^lirf  Commons,  and  was  advised 
to  ask  pardon  upon  his  knees.      He   repHed   that  "as 

1  Temple,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  III.  p.  45. 


/ 


> 


\ 


\ 

36         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

he  had  the  honor  to  be  his  Majesty's  Secretary  of 
State,  the  case  was  not  his,  but  his  master's,  and,  by  the 
grace  of  the  Hving  God,  he  would  kneel  and  ask  pardon 
of  no  mortal  on  earth  but  the  King  whom  he  served, 
and  to  him  only  would  he  give  an  account  of  anything 
done  with  intent  to  serve  him."^ 

It  was  just  on  this  question  as  to  whom  the  minister 
was  responsible  that,  as  we  have  seen,  the  battle  had 
J)een  raging  for  centuries.  After  the  Restoration  it  was 
renewed  with  quite  the  old  vigor.  It  is^true  that  Par- 
liament no  longer  claimed  the  right  to  appoint  the 
ministers,  but  the  claim  which  it  had  reasserted  under 
the  early  Stuarts,  to  get  rid  of  ministers  of  which  it 
disapproved  by  means  of  impeachment,  it  continued  to 
maintain  under  Charles  II.  The  case  of  Lord  Claren- 
don is  not  perhaps  a  very  marked  illustration,  for  in 
the  end  the  King  seems  to  have  been  as  anxious  to  do 
away  with  him  as  was  Parliament,  but  whether  he  would 
have  been  able  to  do  so  without  Parliamentary  support 
is  perhaps  questionable.  Undoubtedly  the  dissolution 
of  the  Cabal  was  due  entirely  to  Parhamentary  opposi- 
tion. That  ministry  through  which  disgraceful  negotia- 
tions had  been  carried  on  with  France,  through  which 
the  Exchequer  had  been  closed,  and  a  war  with  the 
Dutch  had  been  brought  abou^  in  which,  according  to 
Temple  "  the  nations  had  fought  without  being  angry," 

1  "Lives  of  the  Norths,"  p.  352.      Bohn  Library. 


X 


THE  FIRST  STEP  37 

and  which  "had  succeeded  in  making  only  four  great 
citizens,"  and  under  which  the  Declaration  of  Indul- 
gence had  been  promulgated,  was  odious  to  every  one 
except  the  King.  Parliament  found  means  of  getting 
rid  of  it.  Clifford  was  driven  out  by  the  Test  Act. 
Arlington  was  forced  to  change  his  policy.  Lauderdale 
was  obliged  to  confine  himself  to  Scotch  affairs.  Buck- 
ingham was  dismissed  in  answer  to  an  address  from  the 
Commons,  and  Shaftesbury  saw  that  his  safest  course 
was  to  place  himself  at  the  head  of  the  popular  party. 
Later  Danby  was  removed  by  impeachment,  and  thus 
up  to  1679  Parliament  was  instrumental  in  getting  rid 
of  every  ministry  of  Charles  11. 

We  have  evidence,  too,  that  the  Commons  were  begin- , 
ning  not  only  to  put  a  minister  out  of  office  of  whom 
the   King   approved,  but   even   to   keep   one   in   office  i 
contrary   to   his   wishes.      In   one  notable   instance,  at    \ 
least.  Lord  Clarendon  kept   his   place  for  a  short  time  / 

through   the   support   of  Parliament,    although   he   had     \r 
forfeited   the   favor   of  the    King.      He   and   the   Lord       \ 
Treasurer,  Southampton,   disapproved   of  the   Declara-       \ 
tion   of  Indulgence,  and    especially  of  the   clause  that       / 
was   attached    to   it,  granting   the   King   the   power  to 
dispense  with  penalties  in  ecclesiastical  matters.     They 
opposed   it   therefore    in    Parliament,   were    successful,    i 
and   retained   their   positions,  notwithstanding   the   dis-  / 
pleasure  of  the  King.  / 


38         CABINET    GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

V 

Turning  our  attention  from  the  external  relations  of 
the  Cabinet  of  Charles  II.,  let  us  consider  its  internal 
arrangements  —  the  relations  of  the  ministers  to  one 
another.  While  we  find  the  word  Ministry  used  during 
this  period,  there  really  was  no  such  thing  in  the 
modern  acceptation  of  the  term.  There  were  a  num- 
ber of  ministers,  but  there  was  no  ministry.  In  the  \ 
first  place,  there  was  no  acknowledged  head  who  was  i 
charged  with  the  formation  of  a  ministry.  For  so  long 
as  the  King  was  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure  at  the  head 
of  the  government,  no  other  Cabinet  leader  was  nee-  / 
essary.  And  Clarendon  tells  us  that  nothing  was  so 
hateful  to  Englishmen  as  a  prime  minister,  that  they 
would  rather  be  subject  to  an  usurper  who  ruled  as 
well  as  reigned,  than  to  a  lawful  monarch  who  ruled 
through  a   prime   minister.^      When   in    1661    Ormond 

1  Clarendon,  "  Autobiography,"  Vol.  I.  p.  89.  About  the  same 
time  Halifax  was  writing :  "  Our  Trimmer  cannot  conceive  that  the 
power  of  any  prince  should  be  lasting,  but  when  it  is  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  his  own  unborrowed  virtue  ;  he  must  not  only 
be  the  •  First  Mover  and  Fountain  from  which  the  great  acts  of 
State  originally  flow,  but  he  must  be  thought  so  by  his  people, 
that  they  may  preserve  their  veneration  for  him ;  he  must  be 
jealous  of  his  power,  and  not  impart  so  much  to  any  about  him 
that  he  may  suffer  an  eclipse  by  it.  He  cannot  take  too  much  care 
to  keep  himself  up;  for  when  a  prince  is  thought  to  be  led  by  those 
with  whom  he  should  only  advise,  and  that  the  commands  which 
he  gives  are  transmitted  through  him,  and  are  not  of  his  own 
growth,  the  world  will  look  upon  him   as   adorned  with  feathers 


THE  FIRST  STEP  39 

suggested   to   him   that   he  give  up  the  chancellorship, 
and  confine   himself  to   advising   the  King  on  matters 
of   general    policy,  he    answered    that    he  "could    not 
consent    to    enjoy   a    pension    out   of   the    Exchequer 
under  no  other  title  or  pretence  but  being  First  Minis- 
ter, a  title  so  newly  translated  out  of  French  into  Eng- 
lish  that   it  was   not   enough   understood   to   be   liked,    , 
and  every  one  would  detest   it  for   the   burden   it  was' 
attended  with."     Of  course  there   was   generally   some    I 
one  who,  by  his  talents  and  influence,  gained  such  an  ' 
ascendency  as  to  overawe  his  colleagues ;  but  that  was 
accidental,    not   a    matter   of    settled   policy.      I   have 
already   quoted   a   passage    from    Burnet   in   which    he 
speaks  of  Clarendon  as  the  "first  and  only  minister."/ 
Reresby  calls  him  "  the  great  Minister  of  State  at  that 
time."  ^      Later    he    speaks    of    Buckingham    as   "  the 
principal    Minister    of    State,"   and    adds    "the    King 
consulted  him  chiefly  in   aU   matters  of  moment  ;   the 
foreign    ministers    applied    themselves    to    him    before 
they  were   admitted   to   have   audience  of  the  King."  ^ 
North  says  that  Jefferies  was   at  one  time  "commonly 
reputed  a  favorite  and  next  door  to  premier  minister."  ^ 
But  so  far  from  the  man  who  happened  to  be  chief 

that  are  not  his  own,  and  consider  him  rather  an  engine  than  a 
living  creature."  —  Halifax,  "  On  the  Character  of  a  Trimmer." 

1  Reresby,  "  Memoirs,"  p.  53.  2  Jbid..,  p.  76.  ^ 

3  "  Lives  of  the  Norths,"  p.  354. 


O?  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


40        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

minister  being  intrusted  with  the  entire  formation  of 
the  ministry,  ministers  were  often  chosen  of  whom  he 
wholly  disapproved.  For  example,  in  1662,  the  King 
by  a  large  pension  induced  Clarendon's  friend  Nicho- 
las to  resign  his  position  as  Secretary  of  State,  and 
in  his  place  he  appointed  Sir  Henry  Bennet,  afterward 
Lord  Arlington,  a  man  whom  Clarendon  characterized 
as  one  who  "knew  no  more  about  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  England  than  he  did  of  China."  ^  When 
Southampton  died,  the  Treasury,  against  the  advice 
of  Clarendon,  was  put  into  commission. 

In  the  second  place,  there  was  no  ministry,  because 
unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  was  not  as  yet  required.  The 
ministers  were  men  of  different  opinions,  pledged  to  no 
particular  poHcy.  It  was  not  expected  that  they  should 
agree,  but  only  that  each  one  should  give  the  King  the 
benefit  of  his  advice.  It  followed  that  it  was  impossible 
\  to  speak  of  the  policy  of  the  administration.  For  as  the/ 
individual  minister  was  not  appointed  with  the  undern 
standing  that  he  was  to  support  a  particular  policy,  much  \ 
^v/  less  was  the  administration,  as  a  whole,  so  chosen.  We  ' 
have  numerous  examples  of  disagreement  among  min- 
isters. Thus  during  the  period  of  the  Clarendon  ascen- 
dency, the  servants  of  the  Crown  were  divided  on  the 
Act  of  Uniformity,  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence,  and 
the  Five-mile  Act.  Coventry,  who  as  a  commissioner 
1  Clarendon,  "  Autobiography,"  p.  193. 


V] 


fbl-i 
ncei 
re  J 


T//E  FIRST  STEP  4 1 

of  the  Treasury,  was  a  member  of  the  administration,/ 
was  active  in  the   impeachment  of  Clarendon.      Later! 
Wilmington,  the  solicitor-general,  was  concerned  in  the 
impeachment  of  Danby. 

As  unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  was  not  required,  it  fol 
lowed  that  the  minister  did  not  resign  because  his  advic 
[was  not  taken.  He  too  frequently  in  that  case  re 
mained  in  office  simply  to  carry  out  the  royal  will. 
Thus  Burnet  writes  of  Henry  Coventry  :  "  He  never  gave 
bad  advice ;  but  when  the  King  followed  the  ill  advice 
that  others  gave,  he  thought  himself  bound  to  excuse, 
if  not  to  justify,  them.  The  Duke  of  York  said  that  he 
was  a  pattern  to  all  good  subjects,  since  he  defended* 
all  the  King's  counsels  in  public,  even  when  he  hafl 
opposed  them  most  in  private  with  the  King  himself."^* 
And  again  of  Ormond,  "  He  always  gave  good  advices, 
but  when  bad  ones  were  followed,  he  was  not  for  com- 
plaining too  much  of  them."^  For  the  minister  to 
stand  by  the  King  whether  he  approved  of  his  course 
or  not,  was  considered  by  many  the  chivalrous  thing  to 
do.  And  especially  was  it  the  chivalrous  thing  to  do  when 
the  minister  saw  that  the  King  was  following  bad  advices, 
which  were  likely  to  get  him  into  trouble.  It  was  the 
custom  to  remain  in  office  until  dismissed  by  the  sovereign, 
and  dismissal  was  generally  looked  upon  as  a  disgrace. 
Unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  was  not  necessary  for  the 
1  Burnet,  "  History  of  my  Own  Times,"  p.  204.     2  JUd.^  p.  6^. 


i 


42         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

I  same  reason  that  a  prime  minister  was  not  necessary  — 
\  the  personal  rule  and  paramount  influence  of  the  King. 
Indeed  it  is  possible  to  trace  all  the  important  differ- 
ences between    the  ministry  of  to-day  and   the  loosely 
I       connected  body  of  ministers  of  two  centuries  ago,  to 
>      •  the  fact  that  it  is  to  the  Parliament,  and  no  longer  to 
I  the    King,   that    the    ministers   are   responsible.       The 
change  in  the  external  relations  of  the   ministry  neces- 
sitated the  change  in  the  internal  relations.     Nor  were 
these   internal   changes    practicable   until    the   external 
had  been  effected. 

From  the  fact  that  the  ministers  were  responsible  to 
the  King  alone,  it  followed  also  that  the  King  did  not 
consider  it  necessary  to  consult  them  on  all  subjects. 
Business  which  could  be  transacted  without  bringing  it  \ 
before  Parliament  was  sometimes  transacted  without  the  ' 
knowledge  of  certain  ministers  —  occasionally  without  , 
the  knowledge  of  the  principal  minister.  Other  matters 
were  arranged  to  be  introduced  into  Parliament,  and 
prominent  ministers  knew  nothing  about  them  until 
the  plans  were  completed.  Thus  Clarendon,  writing 
to  Ormond  of  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence,  says  :  "  I 
could  not  give  you  any  account  of  the  Declaration,  know- 
ing no  more  of  it  myself  than  that  one  day  when  I  was 
in  great  pain.  Sir  Henry  Bennet  came  to  me,  and  told 
me  that  the  King  had  observed  a  great  malice  abroad, 
infusing  jealousy  into  the  people,  and  therefore  that  his 


THE  FIRST  STEP  43 

Majesty  had  resolved,  as  an  antidote  to  that  poison,  to 
pubUsh  a  declaration  which  was  prepared,  and  he  was 
sent  to  read  it  to  me.  When  I  had  heard  it,  I  made 
objections  to  parts,  and  expressed  some  doubts  as  to 
its  seasonableness.  Sir  H.  B.  departed.  Some  time 
after,  when  I  was  in  the  same  indisposition,  he  came  again 
to  me,  and  told  me  that  he  had  made  such  alterations  as 
would  answer  all  my  objections,  and  that  the  King  had 
resolved  that  it  was  time  to  publish  it.  I  told  him  by 
the  time  he  had  written  as  many  declarations  as  I  had 
done,  he  would  find  that  they  were  a  ticklish  commodity, 
and  the  first  care  is  to  be  that  they  do  no  hurt."  ^ 

The  Cabal  were  commonly  supposed  to  be  willing 
to  go  all  lengths  with  the  King,  but  not  even  to  all  of 
them  did  he  inttjjnst  all  his  secrets.  Clifford  and  Ar- 
lington were  the  only  members  of  that  body  who  knew 
all  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Dover.  The  treaty  which 
the  other  councillors  signed  was  just  like  it,  except  that 
the  article  concerning  religion  was  left  out.  Danby  and 
Lauderdale  werffi| intrusted  with  the  contents  of  the 
treaty  which  Chl^jes  made  with  France  in  1676,  but 
Coventry  and  Williamson  were  not. 

1  Lister,  "  Life  of  Clarendon,"  Vol.  11.  pp.  204-205. 

Bennet  tells  a  different  story,  but  for  the  point  which  I  have  to 
make,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Clarendon's  statement  does  not  much 
matter.  The  fact  that  he  made  the  statement  at  all  shows  that 
there  was  nothing  unheard  of  in  such  a  proceeding. 


44         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

As  the  King  was  not  bound  on  all  occasions  to  ask 
the  advice  of  his  ministers,  so  he  was  not  bound  to 
limit  his  consultations  on  state  affairs  to  them.  George 
III.  did  not  originate  the  idea  of  employing  two  min- 
isters at  the  same  time  :  the  one  nominal,  holding  the 
offices ;  the  other  real,  giving  the  advice.  While  Clar- 
endon was  still  regarded  by  the  nation  as  the  first  officer 
of  state,  Pepys  tells  us  that  the  King's  real  councillors 
were  "my  Lord  Bristol,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  Sir 
Henry  Bennet,  my  Lord  Ashley,  and  Sir  Charles  Berke- 
ley, who,  amongst  them,  have  cast  my  Lord  Chancellor 
on  his  back  past  ever  getting  up  again,  there  being 
now  little  for  him  to  do.  He  waits  at  court,  attending 
to  speak  to  the  King,  as  the  others  do."  ^ 
/  Signs  were  not  wanting,  however,  that  the  old  order 
of  things  was  passing  away,  as  regards  the  internal  as 
well  as  the  external  relations  of  the  Cabinet.  The 
two  notable  impeachments  of  the  reign,  combined  with 
the  attitude  of  the  nation  toward  the  fallen  ministers, 
mark  a  stage  in  the  history  of  Cabinet  development. 
\  Clarendon  was  really  held  responsible  for  all  the 
1  misfortunes  of  the  country  during  his  administration. 
Things  had  gone  wrong,  and  some  one  must  be  to 
blame  for  it.  It  did  not  seem  feasible  to  call  the 
King  to  account,  and  the  next  person  the  people  could 
think  of  was  the  chief  minister.  The  result  was  that 
1  Pepys's  "Diary,"  May  15,  1663. 


THE   FIRST  STEP  45 

he  was  obliged  to  suffer  for  many  things  for  which  he  , 

was  no  more  responsible  than  were  others,  and  for  some        ^^-vL 
things  which  he  had  tried  to   prevent.     Thus  he  was 
held   responsible    for    the    Dutch   war,   which   he   had 
opposed,  and   for   the   division  of  the  fleet,  which  he 
had  not  suggested. 

The  feeHng  that  the  minister  should  be  responsible/ 
for  whatever  takes  place  while  he  is  in  office  is  even 
more  marked  in  the  case  of  the  impeachment  of  Danby. 
This  minister,  throughout  his  administration,  opposed 
the  French  policy  of  the  King  as  vigorously  as  it  was 
possible  for  him  to  oppose  it  and  yet  retain  his  posi- 
tion. Because  the  French  King  recognized  the  fact 
that  he  was  the  principal  obstacle  in  the  way  of  carry- 
ing out  his  schemes,  he  determined  to  ruin  him  by 
making  him  appear  the  friend  of  the  French  court. 
Under  his  master's  directions,  Danby  had  written  a 
letter  to  Montagu,  the  English  minister  in  France,  em- 
powering him  to  make  application  to  the  French  court 
for  a  sum  of  money.  Louis  now  ordered  Montagu  to 
betray  this  fact  to  the  English.  Danby  pleaded  the 
King's  command,  adding :  "  I  believe  there  are  very 
few  subjects  but  would  take  it  ill  not  to  be  obeyed  by 
their  servants ;  and  their  servants  might  as  justly  expect 
their  master's  protection  for  their  obedience.  The  let- 
ter was  written  by  the  King's  command  upon  the  subject 
of  peace  and  war,  wherein  his  Majesty  alone  is  at  all 


i^ 


> 


46         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  JENGIAND 

times  sole  judge,  and  ought  to  be  obeyed,  not  only  by 
his  ministers  of  state,  but  by  all  his  subjects."^  No/ 
doubt  could  possibly  be  entertained  of  the  truth  of 
this  statement,  for  Charles  had  himself  added  a  post- 
script with  his  own  signature  to  the  letter  under  con- 
sideration. But  the  plea  did  not  save  the  minister; 
and  when  he  further  pleaded  the  King's  pardon,  it 
only  served  to  incense  the  House  the  more.  The 
Commons  went  so  far  as  to  resolve  that  "no  com- 
moner whatsoever  should  presume  to  plead  the  validity 
of  the  King's  pardon  granted  to  the  Earl  of  Danby 
without  their  consent,  on  pain  of  being  accounted  a 
betrayer  of  the  liberties  of  the  Commons  of  England."^ 

1'  Thus  the  man  whom  the  English  and  the  French  King 
both  knew  to  be  the  chief  enemy  of  the  French  policy 
of  the  English  King  was  held  responsible  for  that  policy. 
^     These  are  most  significant  facts.     In   them  we  see, 
\  in  the  first  place,  a  promise  of  the  greater  power  that 
was  to  come  to  the  ministry  through  responsibility  to 
Parliament.     For  if  the  minister  is  to  be  held  respon- 
sible by  Parliament  for  what  happens  during  his  min- 
istry, he  must  have  full  power  to  control  what  happens. 
'(That  is,  the  personal  rule  of  the  sovereign  must  cease. 
The  Cabinet  must  soon  wake  up  to  the  fact  that  it  is 
>not   possible   to   serve    two    masters;    that    Parhament 

1  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  IV.  col.  1070. 

2  Ibid.,  cols.  1 1 30-1 131. 


THE   FIRST  STEP  47 

is  a  most  exacting  taskmaster,  and  in  order  to  fulfil 
its  requirements  more  power  on  the  part  of  the  ser- 
vants is  necessary.  In  the  second  place,  we  see,  though 
perhaps  not  quite  so  clearly,  a  prophecy  of  the  future 
solidarity  of  the  Cabinet.  If  the  individual  minister  is 
to  be  held  responsible  for  all  important  measures  taken 
by  the  administration  as  a  whole,  he  must  be  under- 
stood to  agree  to  all  such  measures ;  and  if  in  any  case 
he  is  not  wilhng  to  incur  responsibility  for  governmental 
action,  he  must  announce  his  position  to  the  nation  by 
resigning  his  office.  Thus  have  the  external  relations 
of  the  Cabinet  affected  its  internal  development. 

But  if  in  these  impeachments  we  find  indications  of 
what  the  outcome   of  the    struggle  between  King  and 
Parliament  for  the  control  of  the  ministers  was  to 
they  also  show  very  clearly  the_gvils   of  the   transition 
peri^od^     The  excitement  and  bitterness  attendant  upon 
them  were  the  natural  accompaniments  of  the  stage  of 
development  then  reached.     There  were  just  two  ways 
in  which  it  was  possible  to  get  rid  of  a  minister.     Either 
the  King  dismissed  him  or  Parliament__impeached  him. 
If  he  managed  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  the  King,   \ 
he  remained  in  office  until  the  House  of  Commons  was 
lashed  to  such  a  state  of  fury  as  to  bring  about  a  political 
impeachment.     The  hatred  directed  against  Clarendon 
is  a  strong  example  in  point.     Yielding  to  the  popu-  ^  '^ 
lar  fury  against  him,  and  being  also  himself  not  a,  little 


and       / 
)  be,      / 


1 


48         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

incensed,  Charles  dismissed  him  without  waiting  for 
an  impeachment.  But  the  Commons  were  not  satisfied, 
for  an  impeachment  was  brought  even  after  his  dis- 
missal. All  manner  of  accusations  were  brought  against 
the  ex-chancellor ;  and  when  the  accusers  were  told  that 
these  would  not  amount  to  high  treason,  they  asked 
what  would  amount  to  it,  as  though  willing  to  bring 
any  charge  imaginable,  if  only  their  end  might  be  at- 
tained. Among  the  articles  of  impeachment  as  at  first 
drawn  up,  none  was  found  to  amount  to  treason ;  but 
the  one  which  came  nearest  to  it  was  Article  XVI., 
which  read,  "That  he  hath  deluded  and  betrayed  his 
Majesty  and  the  nation  in  foreign  treaties,  and  negotia- 
tions relating  to  the  late  war."  When  this  was  read  in 
the  House,  Lord  Vaughan  moved  that  the  words  be 
added  "  and  discovered  and  betrayed  his  secret  counsels 
to  the  enemy,"  promising  to  produce  proof  later.  He 
confessed  afterward  to  Lord  Dartmouth  "  that  he  did 
not  know  any  one  thing  against  Lord  Clarendon,  but 
that  he  knew  that  he  had  so  many  enemies  that  he 
could  never  want  any  evidence  to  make  good  what  he 
said."^ 

\  Much  the  same  spirit  was  shown  in  the  impeachment 
of  Danby.  He  was  charged  with  .high  treason  for 
offences  that  could  not  possibly  amount  to  that  crime, 
and  charges  were  brought  against  him  for  which  there 

1  Burnet,  "  History  of  his  Own  Times,"  Vol.  I.,  I72d  ed.,  1830. 


THE  FIRST  STEP  49 

was  no  proof.  Under  the  present  arrangement,  by  means 
of  which  it  is  possible  to  get  rid  of  an  administration  as 
soon  as  it  is  displeasing  to  the  Commons,  such  hatred 
of  and  injustice  toward  a  minister  would  be  almost  an 
impossibility. 

The  first  step  in  the  development  of  a  system  whicly 
was  to  reconcile  the  executive  and  legislative  branched 
of  government  had  been  taken ;  but  until  other  step^ 
were  taken,  so  far  from  lessening  the  hostility  it  had 
increased  it.  To  us,  looking  back  upon  the  period, 
signs  are  discernible  even  then  of  the  way  in  which 
the  problem  was  to  be  solved. 


X. 


{ 


CHAPTER  III 

AN  ATTEMPT    AT    A     COMPROMISE   :    SIR     WILLIAM    TEMPLE'S 
SCHEME 

From  the  Restoration,  Parliament  a  permanent  feature  of  the 
Constitution  —  Hence  tendency  to  absorb  all  the  functions  of 
government  —  Attempts  on  the  part  of  the  King  to  control 
Parliament  —  Sir  William  Temple  asked  to  frame  a  plan  of 
government  —  His  character — His  plan  —  The  King  and 
Temple  disagree  over  the  admission  of  Halifax  and  Shaftesbury 
to    the     Council  —  Formation    of    interior    Council     of    nine 

—  Formation  of  interior  Coimcil  of  three  —  Halifax  added  to  this 
Council  —  Dissensions  in  the  Council  —  Shaftesbury  becomes 
leader  of  the  Opposition  in  Parliament  —  Shaftesbury  and 
Monmouth  are  for  a  short  time  members  of  the  interior  Council 

—  Dissolution  of  Parliament — Dissolution  of  interior  Council 

—  Formation  of  new  interior  Council — Members  of  Council  ceased 
to  attend  —  Abandonment  of  the  plan  —  Causes  for  its  failure. 

AFTER  the  dissolution  of  the  Long  Parliament  of 
Charles  II.,  and  the  meeting  of  the  very  violent 
new  Parliament  of  1679,  the  King  awoke  to  the  fact 
that  some  change  in  the  mode  of  administration  was 
necessary.  Something  must  be  done  to  bring  about 
more  harmonious  relations  between  Parliament  and  the 
Crown.     He  had   discovered  by   bitter  experience  that 

SO 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S   SCHEME  51 

the  English  Constitution  was  undergoing  a  change; 
and  he  must  do  what  he  could  to  prevent  that  change 
taking  a  direction  too  unfavorable  to  himself. 

The  principal  change,  as  Professor  Seeley  has  so  well 
pointed  out,  lay  in  the  fact  that  ParHament  had  become 
a  fixed  and  permanent  feature  in  the  body  politic 
Since  the  Restoration,  no  English  sovereign  has 
attempted  to  govern  without  a  parhament.  That 
body  has  been  recognized  as  an  authority  at  least 
coordinate  with  the  Crown.  And  no  sooner  had  it 
attained  this  position,  than  it  exhibited  a  tendency  to 
absorb  all  the  functions  of  government.  'The  history  of 
the  Long  Parliament  of  Charles  II.  is  that  of  a  seven- 
teen years'  struggle  with  the  sovereign,  and  that  too 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  in  no  former  period  of  equal 
length  had  the  Crown  exceeded  its  lawful  authority  so 
little,  and  the  further  fact  that  this  ParHament  was  the 
most  enthusiastically  loyal  set  of  men  that  could  be 
got  together.  When  such  men  proved  so  stubborn  in 
maintaining  their  rights,  it  was  useless  to  hope  to  ever 
again  have  a  House  of  Commons,  possessed  of  "  the 
primitive  temper  and  integrity,  the  old  good  manners, 
the  old  good  nature,"  ^  for  which  Clarendon  sighed. 

1  Seeley,  *•  Introduction  to  Political  Science,"  p.  254  et  seq. 

2  "  Expressions  of  my  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon,  which  I  could 
never  read  without  being  moved." — Bolingbroke,  "  On  the  State  of 
Parties  at  the  Accession  of  George  I.  " 


u 


< 


52         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

\  As  we  have  seen,  Parliament  had  been  instrumental 
jin  getting  rid  of  every  ministry  of  Charles  II.  prior  to 
'1679.  Nor  had  it  been  content  with  taking  to  itself 
the  power  of  dismissal.  It  had  attempted  in  every  way 
to  control  the  exercise  of  royal  authority.  It  had  dis- 
puted the  pardoning  power  not  only  in  the  case  of  the 
wholesale  pardon  of  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence, 
but  as  we  have  seen  it  had  treated  the  pardon  of  Danby  ; 
with  contempt  and  indignation.  It  had  forced  the  ' 
King  to  make  peace  with  Holland,  and  had  almost 
forced  him  to  make  war  with  France.  The  Commons 
Jhad  also  made  use  of  their  power  over  the  purse  to 
control  executive  action.  Thus,  in  1665,  when  they 
granted  supplies  for  the  Dutch  war,  a  clause  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Subsidy  Bill,  providing  that  the  funds  so| 
voted  should  be  used  only  for  the  purposes  of  this  war.  \ 
In  order  that  Parhament  might  be  sure  that  this  clause 
of  the  bill  was  respected,  a  committee  was  appointed  ' 
in  1666  to  inspect  the  accounts  of  the  navy,  ordnance, 
and  stores.  When  the  authority  of  this  committee 
was  discovered  to  be  deficient,  commissioners  were 
appointed  with  the  most  extraordinary  powers  to 
examine  into  the  pubUc  finances.  "They  were  to 
examine  upon  oath,  to  summon  inquests  if  they  thought 
fit,  to  commit  persons  disobeying  their  orders  to  prison 
without  fail,  to  determine  finally  on  the  charge  and 
discharge    of    all    accountants ;  —  the    barons    of    the 


SI^    WILLIAM    TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  53 

Exchequer,  upon  a  certificate  of  their  judgment  were 
to  issue  process  for  recovering  the  money  to  the  King's 
use,  as  if  there  had  been  an  immediate  judgment  in 
their  own  court.  Reports  of  the  commissioners'  pro- 
ceedings were  to  be  made  from  time  to  time  to  the 
King,  and  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  None  of 
the  commissioners  were  to  be  members  of  Parha- 
ment."  ^ 

Thus  much  for  the  attempt  which  ParHament  had 
made  to  control  the  King  and  his  ministers.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  King  and  his  ministers  had  done  all 
they  could  to  control  Parhament,  especially  the  House 
of  Commons.  Clarendon  tells  us  that  from  the  Restora- 
tion until  1663,  the  King  referred  the  conduct  of  affairs 
in  Parliament  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  and  Lord  South- 
ampton, "  who  had  every  day  conference  with  some 
select  persons  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  with 
these  they  consulted  in  what  method  to  proceed,  in 
disposing  the  House,  sometimes  to  propose,  sometimes 
to  consent  to,  what  should  be  most  necessary  to  the 
public,  and  by  them  to  assign  parts  to  other  men  whom 
they  found  disposed  and  willing  to  concur  in  what  was 
being  desired."  ^  After  the  fall  of  Clarendon  there 
continued  to  be  persons,  either  in  or  out  of  the  min- 
istry,   who    endeavored    to    secure    majorities    in    the 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  IV.  cols.  334,  336. 

2  Lister,  "  Life  of  Clarendon,"  Vol.  IL  p.  7. 


54         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

,  House  of  Commons  for  the  ministers.  But  they  were 
frequently  unsuccessful,  even  when  to  their  other 
arguments  gold  was  added. 

The  attitude  of  the  executive  officers  toward  Parlia- 
ment may  be  seen  in  a  bill  which  was  brought  into  the 
House  of  Lords  in  1675,  probably  not  at  the  suggestion, 
but  certainly  with  the  approval,  of  Danby,  who  was  then 
/    chief  minister.     This  bill  required  all  office-holders  and 
I    all  members  of  Parliament  to  take  an  oath,  declaring 
\  that  they  considered  resistance  to  the  royal  power  in 
[all  cases  criminal,  and  that  they  would  never  alter  the 
I  government  in  either  Church  or  State.^ 
{      It  was  impossible  to  govern  either  by  Cabinet  or  by 
Parliament :   impossible   to   do  so   by  Cabinet   because 
of  the  vigorous  opposition  of  Parliament  and  the  nation ; 
impossible  to  do  so  by  Parliament  because  of  the  King's 
own  strong  repugnance,  and  because  Parliament  was  at 
that  time   made   up  of  violent,  undisciplined   factions, 
,    without   organization   or   leadership.      The    King   must 
\  somehow   make   a  workable   combination   of  the   two. 
He  did  not  understand  how  to  do  this,  so  he  called 
Sir  William  Temple  to  his  assistance. 

Macaulay's  characterization  of  Temple  is  well  known, — 
"  A  man  of  the  world  among  men  of  letters,  and  a  man 
of  letters  among  men  of  the  world."     While  he  under- 
stood foreign  affairs  better  than  any  other  Englishman 
1  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  IV.  col.  715. 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  55 

of  the  time,  he  had  a  desire  to  keep  out  of  politics  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  was  almost  culpable.  Up  to 
this  time  he  had  never  sat  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  had  no  desire  to  do  so.  He  had  repeatedly  refused 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  on  the  ground  that  he 
was  not  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  That  he 
might  always  have  this  excuse  for  refusing  office,  he  took 
care  not  to  be  elected  to  Parliament.  Thus  he  says,  in 
1679,  "The  elections  were  canvassing  for  a  new  Parlia- 
ment, and  I  ordered  my  pretensions,  so  that  they  came 
to  fail." 

He  had  the  Englishman's  dislike  of  a  violent  break/ 
with  the  past.  For  as  he  says  very  beautifully :  "  The 
breaking  down  of  an  old  frame  of  government,  and  the 
erecting  of  a  new  seems  like  the  cutting  down  of  an 
old  oak,  and  planting  a  young  one  in  the  room.  'Tis 
true  the  son  or  grandson,  if  it  prospers,  may  enjoy  the 
shade  and  the  mast ;  but  the  planter,  besides  the  pleasure 
of  imagination,  has  no  other  benefit  to  recompense  the 
pains  of  setting  and  digging,  the  care  of  watering  and 
pruning,  the  fears  of  every  storm  and  every  drought ;  and 
it  is  well  if  he  escapes  a  blow  from  the  fall  of  the  old 
tree  or  its  boughs  as  they  are  lopped  off."  ^ 

Holding  the  view  that  he  did.  Temple  naturally  did 
not  wish  to  make  any  greater  changes  than  were  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  make   the   machine  of  government 

1  Temple,  "  Essay  on  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  Government." 


56         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

run  smoothly.  He  conceived  that  the  best  and  easiest 
way  of  securing  the  administration  against  further  Par- 
liamentary encroachments,  and  at  the  same  time  reliev- 
ing it  of  its  despotic  character,  and  making  it  popular, 
"  giving  ease  and  quiet "  as  he  puts  it  "  both  to  the  King 
and  to  his  people "  was  to  dissolve  the  present  Privy 
Council,  and  to  establish  a  new  one,  all  the  members 
of  which  were  to  be  intrusted  with  all  state  secrets,  and 
the  King  was  to  bind  himself  to  follow  the  advice  of  this 
Council.  He  suggested  that  thirty  persons  should  serve 
as  members  of  the  Council.  Fifteen  of  these  were  to  be 
the  chief  ministers  of  law,  state,  and  religion.  The 
other  fifteen  were  to  be  noblemen  and  gentlemen  of 
fortune  holding  no  official  position.  The  combined 
annual  income  of  the  Council  was  to  be  ;£30o,ooo,  an 
enormous  sum  for  that  age,  and  only  ^100,000  less 
than  the  aggregate  income  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
Temple  seems  to  have  thought  that  through  this  plan 
liberty  would  be  guaranteed  without  the  anarchy  which, 
under  the  existing  conditions,  was  the  necessary  accom- 
paniment of  Parliamentary  rule.  For  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  gain  the  assent  of  so  large  a  council  to 
schemes  such  as  found  favor  with  the  Cabal,  and  he 
hoped  that  Parliament,  because  of  its  conf  dence  in  this 
Council,  representing  as  it  did  all  the  great  interests  of 
the  nation,  —  the  law,  the  Church,  Parliament,  and 
the  moneyed  interests,  —  would  be  willing  to  give  up 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  5/ 

its  Struggle  for  those  powers  which  it  may  be  said  to  /  r^ 
have  reached,  but  not  grasped.     As  he  had  not  sat  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  he  probably  did  not  have  the  [ 
affection  for  that  turbulent  body  which  membership  in  \ 
it  would  have  given  him.     And  it  is  also  probable  that  he  ' 
did  not  consider  that  the  House  of  Commons,  if  it  fell 
in  with   his  scheme,  would  have  made  a  bad  bargain. 
For  while  that  House  had  shown  itself  powerful  enough 
to  turn  out  a  government  which  was  displeasing  to  it,  it 
had  not  as  yet  acquired  the  power  to  insure  the  succes- 
sion of  a  government  which  it  considered  more  desirable. 
Why  should  it  not  accept  the  half-loaf  which  was  offered 
to  it,  rather  than  in  the  struggle  to  obtain  the  whole,  run 
the  risk  of  not  getting  anything?     In  forming  his  Coun-  \ 
cil.   Temple   did    indeed    take   into   consideration    the 
chance  of  the  King's  doing  without  a  Parliament,  for  he 
says,  "  Authority  is  observed  much  to  follow  land,  and  at 
the  worst  such  a  council  inight  upon    their  own  stock, 
and  at  a  pinch,  furnish  the  King  so  as  to  relieve  some 
great  necessity  of  the  Crown'' 

The  King  accepted  the  plan,  and  the  next  thing  was 
to  decide  upon  the  persons  who  were  to  constitute  the 
Council.  Over  two  of  these,  Charles  and  Temple  dis- 
agreed. Temple  proposed  to  admit  Halifax,  the  most 
brilliant  perhaps  of  the  statesmen  of  the  age.  The  King 
had  taken  a  temporary  disHke  to  him,  and  would  not  at 
first  consent  to  his  serTmg  in  this  capacity.     Temple, 


58         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

however,  by  representing   that   HaHfax  would   be  very  / 
helpful  in  the  Council,  and  might  be  very  hurtful  if  left  I 
out,  gained   his  point.    The  King  then   wished  to  put 
Shaftesbury  in.     Against  this  Temple  protested  as  vigor- 
ously as  possible,  but  the  King  would  not  yield.     As  it  / 
was  thought  that   Shaftesbury  would  never  be  contents* 
with  being  simply  one  of  a  council  of  thirty,  he  was  made 
Lord   President,  the   number   of  the  councillors   being} 
increased  to  thirty-one.     In  telling  the  story  afterward, 
Temple  said,  "  When  I  could  not  hinder  my  Lord  Shaftes- 
bury's being  brought  into  the  Council,  I  would  have  been 
very  content  that  it  had  died." 

Scarcely  had  the  Council  entered  upon  its  work  than 
its  foundation  principles  were  infringed  upon.     A  secret 

/interior  Council  of  nine  members  was  formed,  and  in  this 
the  influence  of  Shaftesbury  and  Monmouth  was  so 
strong  that  Temple  seriously  contemplated  incapacitat- 

\  ing  himself  for  service  by  neglecting  to  take  the  sacra- 
ment. 

Soon  Lord  Sunderland  asked  that  he  and  Temple 
"  might  be  joined  together  in  perfect  confidence,  and  dis- 
tinct from  any  others  in  the  course  of  the  King's  affairs." 
Temple,  who  seems  to  have  had  considerable  faith  in  the 
political  wisdom  of  this  depraved  statesman,  was  willing 
to  embrace  his  proposition,  although  he  saw  no  need  of 
it,  since,  as  he  says,  he  considered  that  all  affairs  could 
and  should  be  settled  by  the  whole  Council,  with  the  aid 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  59 

of  its  particular  committees.  In  about  a  fortnight, 
Sunderland  requested  that  Essex  be  taken  into  their  con- 
fidence. Temple  demurred  a  little.  However,  he  con- 
sented to  admit  him.  These  three  consulted  together, 
Temple  tells  us,  about  the  "principal  affairs  that  were 
then  on  the  anvil,  and  how  they  might  best  be  prepared 
for  the  Council  and  the  Parliament." 

Naturally,  this  interior  Council  of  three  was  looked 
upon  with  suspicion  and  jealousy  both  by  Parliament  and 
the  Council  of  thirty,  and,  therefore,  did  not  find  its 
work  easy.  Temple  thought  it  might  help  matters  to 
invite  Halifax  to  join  them,  representing  as  he  had  before 
represented  to  the  King,  that  HaUfax  would  be  most 
dangerous  as  an  enemy,  but  most  valuable  as  a  friend. 
This  proposition  was  accepted,  although  it  met  with  con- 
siderable opposition  from  Sunderland.  For  a  time  the 
four  members  of  the  interior  Council  discussed  everything 
before  it  was  brought  before  the  Council  of  thirty  with 
such  apparent  harmony  that  Temple  told  his  colleagues 
that  they  four  were  either  the  four  honestest  men  in 
England  or  the  greatest  knaves,  for  they  made  one 
another  at  least  believe  that  they  were  the  honestest  men 
in  the  world. 

But  if  the  meetings  of  the  four  were  peaceful,  this 
could  not  be  said  of  the  meetings  of  the  thirty.  Shaftes- 
bury was  naturally  chagrined  to  find  himself,  though 
president    of    the    Council,    left    out    of   the    interior 


~-< 


I- 


60         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Council.  At  the  meetings  of  the  thirty,  he  and  Halifax 
carried  on  a  war  of  words,  in  which  Halifax  generally/ 
came  off  victorious. 

Finding  that  he  could  not  control  the  Council,  Shaftes- 
bury, with  the  aid  of  Monmouth,  undertook  to  control 
Parliament,  and  to  stir  it  up  against  the  CoimciL  In  this 
he  was  successful,  a7id  thus  we  find  the  president  of  the 
Council  in  the  curious  position  of  leader  of  the  opposition. 
The  three  lords  of  the  interior  Council,  observing  the 
power  which  Shaftesbury  and  Monmouth  were  gaining  in 
ParHament,  thought  that  this  might  be  diverted  to  the 
side  of  the  government,  if  they  were  asked  to  join  their 
number.  Temple  absolutely  refused  to  consider  this.l 
Whereupon,  for  a  short  time,  he  was  left  out  of  their  con-\ 
sultations,  and  the  real  interior  Council  consisted  of 
Sunderland,  Essex,  HaHfax,  Shaftesbury,  and  Monmouth. 
But  the  new  colleagues  were  found  to  be  unmanageable, 
being  bent  on  themselves  becoming  the  sole  advisers  of 
the  Crown.  So  the  consultations  of  the  four,  which  had 
been  interrupted,  were  resumed.  ■ 

Shortly  after  this,  without  asking  the  advice  of  the 
i  Council  by  which  he  had  promised  to  be  governed, 
\  the  King  prorogued  Parliament.  Although  only  the 
four  members  of  the  interior  Council  were  in  favor  of 
it,  the  next  step  was  to  dissolve  this  Parliament. 
Temple  tells  us  that  Russell,  Shaftesbury,  and  one  or 
two   more  were  "in   the   greatest   rage   in   the  world". 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  6 1 

over   this.     Thus,  in   the   case  of  the   prorogation,  the    i 
Council,  without  whose  advice  nothing  was  to  be  done,  / 
was  not  even  consulted ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  disso- 
lution, four  votes  outweighed  twenty-seven.  ' 

During  the  summer  of  1680  the  King  was  very  ill, 
(and  the  Duke  of  York,  who  had  been  in  Holland, 
'  suddenly  made  his  appearance  in  London.  It  soon 
appeared  that  Halifax  and  Essex,  fearing  lest,  if  the 
King  should  die  and  the  Duke  of  York  was  not  on 
the  spot,  the  ambitious  designs  of  Monmouth  might  be 
crowned  with  success,  had  sent  for  him.  Temple  was 
indignant  that  his  colleagues  should  have  decided  upon 
so  important  a  step  without  his  knowledge.  Essex 
and  Halifax  complained  that  they  were  not  in  the 
King's  confidence,  but  were  made  other  men's  dupes. 
The  conferences  of  the  four  stopped.  Essex  resigned 
his  position  as  first  commissioner  of  the  Treasury, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Hyde,  who,  with  Godolphin, 
was  now  brought  into  the  Council. 

A  Cabinet  of  three,  consisting  of  Sunderland,  Hyde,, 
and  Godolphin,  took  the  place  of  the  Cabinet  of  four.  '^ 
'  The  King  with  the  advice  of  these  three  decided 
to  prorogue  Parhament  for  a  year.  He  announced 
this  fact  to  his  Council,  with  the  statement  that  he  had 
considered  the  matter  carefully,  and  would  hear  noth- 
ing against  it.  Temple,  quite  as  much  surprised  by 
this   move   as   was    anybody   else,   made   a    speech    in 


62         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

which  he  asked  the  King  to  form  some  kind  of  a 
council  which  should  counsel  him,  adding,  "  I  doubt 
whether  to  make  counsellors  that  shall  not  counsel  is 
in  your  Majesty's  power  or  no,  since  it  seems  to  imply 
a  contradiction." 

After  this  Russell,  Cavendish,  Capel,  and  Powle  went 
to  the  King  and  asked  to  be  excused  from  attendance 
at  Council.  Salisbury,  Essex,  and  Halifax  also  ceased 
to  attend,  but  without  going  through  the  form  of  ask- 
ing permission  to  absent  themselves.  Temple  wished 
to  do  the  same  thing;  but  because  he  thought  it  not 
right  that  the  King  should  be  deserted  by  so  many 
councillors  at  once,  he  continued  to  serve,  using  his  best 
endeavors  to  convince  the  King  that  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  work  in  harmony  with  Parliament;  if  not 
with  the  present  Parliament,  with  some  Parliament. 
If,  he  said,  the  mountain  would  not  come  to  Mahomet, 
then  Mahomet  must  go  to  the  mountain. 

The  King,  however,  was  fully  convinced  by  this 
time  that  the  new  plan  would  not  work,  and  he  had 
no  further  use  for  its  author.  When  Temple  asked 
whether  he  should  stand  for  Cambridge  in  the  com- 
ing Parliamentary  elections,  he  advised  him  not  to. 
Shortly  afterward  Temple,  Sunderland,  and  Essex  were 
dismissed  from  the  royal  service.  Temple  retired  to 
rear  melons.  His  scheme,  he  said,  had  failed,  and  he 
was  content   to  have  failed  with  it ;  and   so   he  "  took 


SIR    WILLIAM   TEMPLE'S  SCHEME  63 

his  leave  of  all   those  fairy  visions    which  had  so  long 
busied  his  thoughts  about  mending  the  world."  ^  . 

i  He  always  attributed  the  failure  of  his  plan  to  the  j 
admission  of  Shaftesbury  to  the  Council.  But  the 
defects  of  the  plan  itself  were  sufficient  to  account  for  -v 
its  lack  of  success/  In  the  first  place,  when  the  pro- 
posed Council  was  announced,  he  tells  us  that,  al- 
though the  joy  in  England  and  Holland  was  great, 
"  the  House  of  Commons  received  it  with  great  cold- 
ness, when  the  contrary  was  expected."  Perhaps  that 
House  did  not  see  quite  clearly  whereto  the  success 
of  this  Council  tended ;  but  in  a  blind  way  it  felt  it, 
and  therefore  was  not  pleased.  *"  In  the  second  place, 
in  any  period  of  English  history,  a  council  consisting 
of  as  many  as  thirty  members  would  have  been  un 
manageable,  but  especially  so  in  an  age  so  marked  by 
the  corruption  and  self-seeking  of  its  statesmen  as  was 
the  later  Stuart  period.  Nor  were  its  size  and  the 
lack  of  a  real  public  spirit  on  the  part  of  its  members 
the  only  reasons  why  Sir  William's  Council  could  not 
work  to  advantage.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
thirty,  chosen  to  please  all  parties,  represented  all 
shades  of  opinion.  In  fact,  the  Council  was  a  minia- 
ture Parliament,  and  no  better  calculated  to  act  as  an 
executive    board   than   was    the   real   Parliament.      We 

1  A  full  account  of  this  Council  is  found  in  Temple's  "  Memoirs," 
edited  by  T.  P.  Courtney,  Vol.  II.  pp.  34-74. 


■i 


64         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

are  not,  therefore,  surprised  that  the  interior  Council 
was  formed,  and  that  there  was  the  same  enmity  be- 
tween the  larger  and  smaller  councils  that  there  was 
between  Parliament  and  the  Cabinet.  '"  Members  of 
the  Council  who  were  not  also  members  of  the  in- 
terior Council  simply  made  use  of  their  position  and 
influence  to  stir  up  hostility  against  the  four.s  Finally, 
while  the  statement  was  made  that  the  King  was  always 
to  follow  the  advice  of  his  Council,  no  provision  was 
made  for  forcing  him  to  do  so,  and  as  we  have  seen, 
he  did  not  do  So. 

Temple  enunciated  two  principles,  —  first,  that'  the 
advisers  ^^  t^*^  ^rj7Y^^  must  represent  the  varied  in- 
terests of  the  nation,  and  second,  that  the  King  must 
fnlloAY  their  arlylpf^  In  Other  respccts  his  plan  was  a 
retrogression,  an  undoing  of  the  one  step  in  advance 
which  had  been  taken.  Its  failure  proved  that  the 
progress  which  had  begun  was  not  to  be  stopped  by 
any  compromise  or  half-measures.  It  is  true  that  some 
tyranny  would  probably  have  been  avoided  by  its 
success,  but  without  the  tyranny  it  is  not  likely  that 
England  would  have  had  the  liberty  that  followed  it. 
As  Halifax  put  it,  "The  too  earnest  endeavors  to  take 
from  men  the  rights  that  they  have,  tempt  them,  by 
example,  to  claim  that  which  they  have  not." 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   SECOND   STEP  TOWARD   CABINET   GOVERNMENT 

Temple's  scheme  makes  no  permanent  change  in  the  situation  — 
Origin  of  the  Whig  and  Tory  parties  —  Composition  of  the 
Cabinet  in  the  last  days  of  Charles  II.  —  Meetings  of  mini«ters 
apart  from  the  King  —  Cabinets  of  James  II.  —  Plrst  Cabinet  of 
William  III.  —  Dissensions  in  this  Cabinet  —  Hostility  of  Parlia- 
ment to  Cabinet  government  —  Resignations  of  Halifax  and 
of  Shrewsbury  —  The  business  of  government  almost  at  a 
standstill  —  Sunderland  suggests  that  Parliamentary  leaders  be 
chosen  as  ministers  —  And  that,  for  the  present,  the  ministers 
be  taken  entirely  from  the  Whigs  —  The  government  of  the 
Junto,  1695-1698 — The  King  still  the  real  head  of  the  adminis-  S 
tration  —  No  prime  minister  —  Appointments  in  the  hands  of 
the  King  —  He  transacts  business  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
Cabinet  —  The  Partition  Treaty — The  Cabinet  not  a  sharply 
defined  body — UnwiUingness  of  ministers  to  give  advice  — 
Principle  of  the  solidarity  of  the  Cabinet  not  yet  established  — 
Difficulty  of  the  ministers  in  serving  both  King  and  Parliament 
—  The  Junto  do  not  resign  on  losing  their  majority  in  the 
Commons — Better  discipline  maintained  among  the  Whigs 
than  heretofore  —  A  divided  ministry  succeeds  the  Junto  — 
William  promises  to  establish  another  Whig  ministry,  but  dies 
before  it  is  accomplished — Attempts  to  exclude  ministers  from 
the  Commons  by  means  of  place  bills  —  Attempt  to  revive  the 
F  65 


\ 


66         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Privy  Council  by  a  clause  in  the  Act  of  Settlement  —  Contem- 
porary account  of  the  Constitution  under  William. 

AFTER    the    failure    of   Temple's    scheme,   affairs 
settled  back  into  the  position  in  which  they  were 
before  it  was  tried.     The  remainder  of  the  reign  shows 
I  nothing  especially  new  in  the  history  of  Cabinet  develop- 
;  ment.     The    struggle   between  executive  and  legislative 
continued.     Men  of  all  shades  of  political  opinion  con- 
tinued   to    act    as    colleagues    in    the    administration, 
and  constant   dissensions   between   ministers   continued 
to  emphasize    the    necessity   for    the    formation    of   9^ 
ministry. 
:  •     There  are  one  or  two  points  which  are  deserving  of 
I  notice.     In  1679  we  first  hear  the  names  Whig  and  Tory 
I  .applied  to  the  two  great  pohtical  parties,  and  with  the 
1|  new  names  party  lines  were  more  sharply  defined  than 
y  ever  before.     As  the  Cabinet  system  has  its  foundation 

tin  party  government,  this  is  an  important  fact  in  the 
development  of  our  subject.  English  political  parties, 
standing  for  a  definite  principle,  are  first  discernible  in 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  Before  that  we  frequently  have 
ambitious  men  struggling  by  various  means  to  advance 
their  own  interests.  And  we  have  also  men  uniting  for 
a  short  time  to  secure  national  rights  against  the  en- 
croachments of  the  Crown.  But  when  the  definite 
object  for  which  they  were  strugghng  had  been  gained, 
such   men   fell  apart.     "Classes,"  says  May,  "asserted 


/ 


THE   SECOND   STEP  6/ 

their  rights ;  but  poHtical  parties,  habitually  maintaining 
opposite  principles,  were  unknown."  ^ 

But  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth  we  see  two  distinct 
parties  beginning  to  form  in  Parliament.  The  one  up- 
held the  prerogative  of  the  Crown;  the  other  stood 
out  as  the  champion  of  popular  rights.  When  James  I. 
came  to  the  throne  with  his  doctrine  of  divine  right 
of  kings,  the  party  opposed  to  the  court  was  driven  to 
emphasize  its  position  more  emphatically  than  before. 
Under  Charles  I.  the  well-known  names  Cavalier  and 
,  Roundhead  were  adopted.  In  the  first  years  after  the  ,  A, 
Restoration,  there  was  a  lull  in  the  hostilities.  As 
Bolingbroke  puts  it,  "  Roundhead  and  Cavalier  were  in 
effect  dead.  Whig  and  Tory  were  not  yet  in  being.  The  i 
only  two  apparent  parties  were  those  of  Churchmen  and 
Dissenters,  and  religious  differences  alone  at  this  time 
maintained  the  distinction."  ^  But  very  soon  we  have 
parties  divided  on  the  same  lines  as  before,  though 
with  different  names,  being  now  known  as  the  Court  and 
Country  parties. 

It  was  during  the  fight  over  the  Exclusion  Bill  in  1679  i 
that  the  rather  absurd  new  names  arose,  the  Whigs  being  / 
the  friends  of  that  bill,  and  the  Tories  its  opponents.^  \ 

1  May,  "  Constitutional  History,"  Vol.  II.  p.  19. 

2  Bolingbroke,  "Dissertation  on  Parties." 

8  The   supporters    of    the    Duke    of    York,   having   tendencies 
toward  Catholicism,  were  supposed  to  be  Irish,  and  hence  were 


68         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Nor  was  it  the  Exclusion  Bill  alone  that  made  party 
lines  more  distinct  in  1 6  79-1 680  than  they  had  been 
before.  At  the  time  of  the  prorogation  of  Parliament 
in  1679,  the  King  issued  a  proclamation,  indicating  his 
dislike  of  petitions,  and  rather  encouraging  the  magis- 
trates to  deal  with  the  authors  of  such  as  might  be 
drawn  up.  But  the  Whigs,  not  frightened  by  this, 
presented  numerous  petitions,  asking  for  a  session  of 
Parliament,  while  the  Tories  sent  in  addresses  express- 
ing their  confidence  in  the  King,  and  abhorrence  of  the 
petitions.  Hence  the  two  parties  were  sometimes 
known  as  Petitioners  and  Abhorrers.  Thus  each  side 
was  true  to  its  principles  :  the  Tories  showing  themselves 
ready  to  trust  the  King  and  submit  to  his  will ;  while  the 
Whigs  stood  forth  as  the  advocates  of  popular  liberty. 
During  the  last  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  we 
catch  two  or  three  brief  glimpses  of  the  internal  arrange- 
ments of  the  Cabinet.  Roger  North  gives  us  Lord  Guil- 
ford's notes  on  the  "posture  of  the  Cabinet"  in  1683.^ 
We  would  gather  from  these  that  perhaps  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Cabinet  at  this  time  was  a  little  more  definite 

called  Tories  —  a  term  applied  to  bog-trotters  in  Ireland.  The 
other  party  were  called  Whigs :  according  to  some  a  Scotch  ver- 
nacular for  sour  whey;  according  to  others  from  the  Scotch 
covenanters  of  the  southwestern  countries  in  Scotland,  who  were 
called  Whigamores,  or  Whigs,  when  they  made  an  inroad  upon 
Edinburgh  in  1648  under  the  Marquis  of  Argyll. 
1  "  Lives  of  the  Norths,"  p.  352. 


THE   SECOND   STEP  69 

than  it  was  a  few  years  later,  in  the  reign  of  William  III. 
Seven  persons  are  enumerated  as  Cabinet  ministers : 
Radnor,  the  Lord  President;  Halifax,  Lord  Privy 
Seal ;  Conway  and  Jenkins,  Secretaries ;  Rochester, 
Treasurer;  Ormond  and  Godolphin.  North  also  gives 
an  account  of  a  Cabinet  meeting  at  which  a  great  jail 
delivery  was  proposed.^ 

The  King  was  always  present  at  these  meetings,  but 
we  read  that  "  while  the  Secretary  (Jenkins)  stood,  and 
Lord  Halifax  and  Lord  Hyde,  who  had  spirits  and  were 
hearty,  they  often  met  at  the  Secretary's  on  evenings, 
to  consider  such  dependences  as  were  to  come  before 
the  King  the  next  day.  The  benefit  of  which  was  very 
considerable  to  the  King's  affairs  as  well  as  to  them- 
selves, for  so  the  matters  were  better  understood  than  if 
no  previous  deliberations  had  been  taken ;  and  they 
were  not  unprepared  to  speak  of  them  in  terms  proper 
for  his  Majesty  to  entertain,  without  mistake  or  clash- 
ing one  with  another,  which  happens  sometimes  with 
mere  words,  when  the  thing  is  agreed."^  These  in- 
formal gatherings  of  a  few  ministers,  apart  from  the 
King,  may  be  looked  upon  as  a  prelude  to  Harley's 
famous  Saturday  dinners,  about  which  we  read  so  much 
later. 

In  his  manner   of  choosing  and  method    of  dealing 

1  "  Lives  of  the  Norths,"  p.  352. 

2  Ibid. 


-n 


70        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

with  his  ministers,  James  II.  adopted  the  same  princi- 
ples that  his  brother  had  followed.  Violent  political/ 
opponents  were  appointed  to  office  at  the  same  time.' 
The  King  was  his  own  minister  of  marine.  He  had 
no  intention  of  consulting  his  ministers  on  all  matters. 
When  he  gave  the  Privy  Seal  to  Halifax,  he  said  to  the 
French  ambassador :  "  I  know  him,  and  I  can  never 
trust  him.  He  shall  have  no  share  in  the  management 
of  public  business.  As  to  the  place  I  have  given  him, 
it  will  just  serve  to  show  how  Httle  influence  he  has."  ^ 
Shortly  afterward  he  dismissed  Halifax,  because  he  re- 
fused to  support  him  in  his  efforts  to  do  away  with 
the  Test  Act,  and  then  all  other  ministers  who  would 
not  fall  in  with  his  plans.  "I  will  have  unanimity 
among  my  ministers,"  he  said ;  but  he  only  meant  that 
they  were  to  be  unanimous  in  their  obedience  to  him. 
Sunderland  and  Godolphin  stayed  with  him  to  the  end; 
but  Godolphin  was  only  a  man  of  business,  and  Sunder- 
land, having  gone  all  lengths  with  his  master,  finally 
betrayed  everything  to  the  enemy. 

Coming  to  the  throne  as  he  did,  in  appointing  his 
ministers,  William  III.  thought  it  especially  necessary 
to  conciliate  all  parties.  He  made  Shrewsbury,  the 
darhng  of  the  Whigs,  First  Secretary  of  State.  Notting- 
ham, whose  Toryism  was  of  so  deep  a  dye  that,  while 
he  had  opposed  the  Revolution  with  all  his  energy,  he 

1  Macaulay,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  405. 


THE  SECOND  STEP  7 1 

yet  maintained  that  though  he  could  not  make  a  king, 
on  his  principles  he  could  obey  him  better  than  those 
who  were  so  set  on  making  him,  was  appointed  Second 
Secretary  of  State.  To  the  Trimmer  Halifax  was  given 
the  Privy  Seal.  Danby,  a  moderate  Tory,  was  Lord 
President  of  the  Council.  Mordaunt,  an  extremely  vio- 
lent Whig,  was  created  Earl  of  Monmouth,  and  ap- 
pointed first  commissioner  of  the  Treasury.  The  man 
who  really  did  the  work  in  the  Treasury  was  Godolphin, 
—  a  man  who  had  adhered  to  King  James  to  the  last. 
William  was  his  own  .minister  for  foreign  affairs. 

There  was  certainly  no  lack  of  ability  in  this  admin- 
istration, but  as  Macaulay  tells  us  :  "  One-half  the  abil- 
ity was  employed  in  counteracting  the  other  half.  .  .  .  | 
The  ministers,  instead  of  attending  to  the  business  of  | 
their  offices,  spent  their  time  in  getting  up  addresses/ 
and  impeachments  against  each  other,  and  thus  every  I 
part  of  the  administration  was  in  a  disorganized  con-* 
dition."  ^ 

To  the  enmity  which  existed  between  ministers  must  \ 
be  added  the  enmity  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  I 
ministers  as  a  body.  Burnet,  writing  the  history  of  the 
year  1690,  says:  "In  a  House  of  Commons,  every 
motion  against  a  minister  is  apt  to  be  well  entertained. 
Some  envy  him.  Others  are  angry  at  him.  Many  hope 
to  share  in  the  spoils  of  him  or  of  his  friends,  who 
1  Macaulay,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  III.  p.  67. 


72         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

fall  with  him.  And  a  love  of  change  and  a  wanton- 
ness of  mind  makes  the  attacking  a  nfipi^r  a  diver- 
sion to  the  rest."  By  the  House  of  Commons  the 
Cabinet  was  still  looked  upon  as  an  instrument  of 
despotism.  When,  in  1692,  a  resolution  was  introduced 
into  the  House  sitting  as  a  committee  of  the  whole 
on  advice  to  the  King,  to  the  effect  that  the  King  be 
asked  for  the  future  to  employ  men  of  known  integrity 
and  fidehty.  Sir  William  Strickland  said,  "That  cannot 
be  while  we  have  a  Cabinet  Council."  Mr.  Waller 
continued  in  the  same  tenor :  "  Cabinet  Council  is  not 
a  word  to  be  found  in  our  law  books.  We  knew  it 
not  before.  We  took  it  for  a  nickname.  Nothing 
can  fall  out  more  unhappily  than  to  have  a  distinction 
made  of  the  Cabinet  Council  and  Privy  Council.  .  .  . 
j  If  some  of  the  Privy  Council  must  be  trusted  and  some 
not,  to  whom  may  any  gentleman  apply  ?  Must  he  ask 
*  Who  is  a  Cabinet  councillor  ?  '  This  creates  mistrust 
in  the  people.  I  am  sure  these  distinctions  of  some 
being  more  trusted  than  others  give  great  dissatisfac- 
tion." The  only  argument  that  could  be  urged  in  favor 
of  the  new  system  w^as  that  it  was  convenient ;  but  lib- 
erty was  a  great  price  to  pay  for  convenience.  "  If 
you  think  it  convenient,"  said  Mr.  Goodwin  Wharton, 
"  I  shall  be  of  your  mind ;  but  I  think  this  method  is 
not  for  the  service  of  the  Nation."^ 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  V.  col.  733  et  seq. 


THE  SECOND  STEP    .  73 

In  the  course  of  this  same  debate,  Mr.  Goodwin  Whar- 
ton, describing  the  method  of  procedure,  said,  "Things 
are  concerted  at  the  Cabinet  and  then  brought  to  the 
Council :  such  a  thing  resolved  in  the  Cabinet,  and 
brought  and  put  upon  them  for  their  assent,  without 
showing  any  of  the  reasons."  This  statement  is  inter-/ 
esting  as  showing  that  the  Council  was  now  almost  fully 
shorn  of  its  deliberative  function. 

In  this  period  we  have  two  rather  notable  instances 
of  ministers  quitting  office.  The  first  is  the  resigna- 
tion ofHalifax  in  Octoberj  1689.  Owing  partly  to  cir- 
cumstances which  he  was  unable  to  control,  and  partly 
to  faults  in  himself,  he  had  not  been  a  very  successful 
minister.  The  Commons  had  attacked  him  in  the  pre- 
vious session  for  culpable  mismanagement  of  affairs  in 
Ireland.  He  had  been  acquitted,  but  by  a  very  small 
majority,  and  it  was  probable  that  the  attack  would  be 
renewed.  It  was  not  forgotten  either  that  he  had  been 
in  the  cabinets  of  Charles  and  James  at  times  of  es- 
pecially arbitrary  rule.  Although  he  had  made  use  of 
his  position  to  oppose  despotic  measures,  we  have  seen 
that  Jhe^tendency  to  hold  each  minister  responsible  for 
what  was  done  by  the  administration  as  a  whole  was 
gaining  ground.  Perceiving  that  he  had  lost  the  favor 
of  the  Commons,  he  resigned  without  waiting  for  an 
impeachment  or  even  an  address  to  the  King,  asking 
for   his    removal.      This    is    more    akin    to    a    madern 


74        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ministerial    resignation    than    was    customary    at    that 
time. 

The  case  of  Shrewsbury  in  1690  is  still  more  in  point. 
Burnet  says,  "  The  Earl  of  Shrewsbury  was  among  those 
who   pressed   the    abjuration^   most,  and   when  it  was 
rejected,  he  thought  that  he  could  not  serve  the  King 
longer  with  reputation  or  success  ;  he  saw  that  the  Whigs, 
by  using  the  King  ill,  were  driving  him  to  the  Tories,  and 
he  thought  that  these  could  serve  the  King  with  more 
zeal  if  he  left  his  post."  ^     Here  we  have  a  foreshadowing  [ 
of  three  of  the  principles  upon  which  modern  Cabinet  f 
government  rests.     First,  when  the  advice  of  a  minister  jf: 
is  not  taken,  it  is  the  duty  of  that  minister  to  resign  his 
office.     Second,  when  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  onejT 
party  to  carry  on  the  government,  the  other  party  must  _^ 
be  brought  into  power.     Third,  there  must  be  unanimity    ^ 
in  the  Cabinet. 

With  the  ministers  at  war  with  each  other,  and  Parlia- 

1  A  bill  brought  in  by  the  Whigs  requiring  that  not  only  alle- 
giance be  sworn  to  King  William,  but  that  an  oath  of  abjuration 
to  King  James  be  taken. 

2  We  know  now  that  Shrewsbury  had  another  reason  for  resign- 
ing. He  was  in  correspondence  with  King  James,  and  therefore 
his  conscience  would  not  allow  him  to  serve  under  King  William. 
But  the  mere  fact  of  his  having  made  the  statement  that  his  resig- 
nation was  due  to  his  failure  to  carry  his  measure,  is  an  indication 
of  the  change  that  was  taking  place  in  opinion  as  to  the  obligations 
of  a  minister.  So  far  as  our  purpose  is  concerned,  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  the  statement  is  immaterial. 


THE   SECOND   STEP  75 

ment  unorganized  and  leaderless  at  war  with  the  min- 
isters, the  business  of  government  was  ahuost  at  a 
standstill.  The  early  part  of  William's  reign  is  very  1 
barren  in  Parliamentary  results.  To  vary  John  Stuart  ' 
Mill's  famous  remark  a  little,  the  Parliamentary  records 
of  the  time  go  far  to  demonstrate  the  fact  that  a  large 
body  is  unfit  to  do  business,  but  that  its  proper  function 
is  to  get  business  done.  The  problem  was  to  discover 
the  method  of  getting  business  done.  This  problem 
pressed  for  solution  as  never  before.  For  it  was  now 
fully  acknowledged  that  the  King  could  obtain  supplies 
only  through  the  Commons.  The  Commons,  by  a  refusal 
to  grant  the  revenue  for  life,  had  made  annual  sessions 
of  Parliament  necessary.  By  making  their  grants  in 
the  form  of  appropriations  to  specific  objects,  they  had 
practically  gained  control  of  the  whole  administration. 
Moreover,  foreign  affairs  were  demanding  prompt,  ener- 
getic, and  steady  action.  In  1693  William  had  reason 
to  believe  that  if  only  he  could  push  the  war  with  France 
vigorously,  the  object  for  which  he  lived  might  be  at- 
tained. But  he  could  carry  out  his  plans  only  as  he  was 
permitted  to  do  so  by  Parliament,  and  as  Macaulay  puts 
it,  no  one  could  calculate  one  day  what  the  House  of 
Commons  might  do  the  next. 

At  this  juncture,  Sunderland  suggested  a  way  out  of     > 
the  difficulty.     He  pointed  out  to  the  King  that  the  best      *"v- 
way  of  securing  Parliamentary  support  was  to  intrust  the 


76         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

j important  offices  to  Parliamentary  leaders;  that  the  mi;^- 
j  isters,  instead  of  devoting  their  energies  to  struggling 
I  against  Parliament,  might  work  with  Parhament  for  the 
I  same  objects.     The  hostility  between  executive  and  legis- 
lative would  thus  be  completely  overcome,  for  Parliament 
would   regard  the   ministers  as  their  leaders  and   best 
friends.     As  we  have  seen,  for  about  a  century  and  a 
half,  ministers  had  had  seats  in  both  Houses  of  Parlia- 
1  ment.     What  was  new  in  Sunderland's  suggestion  was 
'  that  possession  of  such  seats  by  the  ministers  should  be 
considered  an  absolute  necessity  (which  was  not   quite 
the  case  in  1693),  and  not  only  that,  but  that  ministers 
should  be  chosen  from  among  acknowledged  Parhamen- 
,  tary  leaders,  thus  controlhng  Parhament  on  the  one  hand, 
and  being  controlled  by  it  on  the  other. 
*    Sunderland  further  advised  that,  in  the  present  critical 
j  state  of  affairs,  the  ministers   be   chosen  entirely  from 
lone   party.     For   several   reasons,   he  thought  that  the 
Whig  party  should  be  preferred.     They  had,  at  that  time, 
a  majority  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  although  their 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  not  a  large  one. 
Indeed,  the  last  elections  had  given  the  Tories  the  pre- 
ponderance, but  since  then  the  Whigs  had  been  gaining 
ground.      They  had  the  additional  advantage  of  being 
under  the  leadership  of  four  able  men,  —  Somers,  Russell, 
^„       Wharton,  and  Montague,  —  who  worked  together  with  a 
\       harmony  scarcely  known  among  English  statesmen  before. 


THE   SECOND   STEP  J  J 

The  Tories  were  a  wholly  disorganized  body,  with  no  ac- 
knowledged leaders  in  the  Commons.    But  the  great  argu-j 
ment  in  favor  of  trusting  the  Whigs  just  then  was  that  theyi 
were  more  attached  to  William  personally  than  were  the ' 
Tories,  and  they  were  prepared  to  support  his  war  policy, 
.r    To  the  suggestion  that  the  ministers  be  chosen  from 
among    the    Parliamentary    leaders,   the   King    readily  \\   . 
assented.     It  becamQ_a  pr_£cedent  for  all_tim£.     To  the  I     X 
suggestion   that   they  be   chosen    exclusively   from   one 
party,  he  assented  reluctantly  and  temporarily  to  meet 
special   exigencies.  /    He  probably  saw  that  to  put  all 
power  into  the  hands  of  a  party  was  to  abandon  personal 
rule  on  the  part  of  the  sovereign.     And  William  was  as 
fond  of  personal  rule  as  any  of  his  predecessors  had  been. 
Moreover,  while  the  Whigs   liked  him  better  than  the 
Tories  did,  he  had  no  more  affection  for  them  than  he 
had  for  their  rivals.      If  the   Tories  were  the   enemies  N/ 
of  his  title,  the  Whigs  were  the   enemies   of  his   pre-   x/ 
rogative.      He   told    Sunderland   that  while   the  Whigs     / 
loved   him   best,   they   did   not    love    monarchy;    that 
though  the  Tories  did  not  love  him  so  well  as  the  Whigs, 
yet  as  they  were  zealous  for  monarchy,  he  thought  that 
they  would  serve  his  government  best.  I  To  which  |he 
earl  replied  that  it  was  very  true   that  the  Tories  were^     ^•-•* 
better  friends  to  monarchy  than  the  Whigs  were ;  but  his 
Majesty  must  remember  that  he  was  not  their  monarch. ^ 
1  Burnet,  Vol.  IV,  p.  5.    Shrewsbury  had  written  to  the  King  in  the 


y 


h 


78         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

\  In  the  carrying  out  of  their  plan,  it  never  occurred  to 
the  King  or  to  Sunderland  that  the  Tory  ministers  then 
in  office  might  be  turned  out  in  a  body,  and  their  places 
filled  by  Whigs.  No  one  was  dismissed  except  as  some 
cause  for  dissatisfaction  was  alleged,  and  in  almost 
every  instance  the  dismissal  was  looked  upon  as  a  dis- 
grace. It  took  therefore  almost  three  years  to  fill  all 
the  principal  offices  with  Whigs.  But  by  the  close  i 
of  1695  ^^  Whig  party  was  in  power  in  a  sense  in, 
which  no  party  had  ever  been  in  power  before. 

Macaulay  speaks  of  this  Whig  government  as  the  first 
\  of  modern  ministries,  and  dates  Cabinet  government 
I  j  in  England  from  the  elections  of  1695.  It  was  in  reality 
but  a  very  early  stage  in  that  system  of  government. 
For  the  King  was  still  the  real  head  of  the  administra- 
tion. This  was  still  the  essential  difference  between 
this  Cabinet  and  the  Cabinet  of  to-day,  and  the  cause 
of  all  the  other  differences. 

The   King   being  the   real   head  of  the  government, 
there  was  still  no  Prime    Minister.     Indeed  it  was  not 

same  strain.  "  Your  Majesty  and  the  government  are  much  more 
safe  depending  upon  the  Whigs,  whose  designs,  if  any,  against 
you,  are  much  more  improbable  and  remoter  than  the  Tories. 
Though  I  agree  them  (the  Tories)  to  be  the  properest  instrument 
to  carry  the  prerogative  high,  yet  I  fear  they  have  so  unreasonable 
a  veneration  for  monarchy  as  not  altogether  to  approve  the  founda- 
tion that  yours  is  built  upon."  —  Cox,  "  Shrewsbury  Correspond- 
ence," p.  15. 


./ 


THE  SECOND  STEP  79 

so  easy  to  say  who  was  first  minister  in  1695  ^s  it  had 
been  on  some  previous  occasions.  For  there  had  been 
administrations  in  which  the  leadership  of  one  man 
was  so  evident  that  it  is  customary  to  speak  of  the 
government  of  Clarendon  and*  the  government  of 
Danby.  Even  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  William 
it  was  a  little  easier  to  say  who  was  at  the  head  of  the 
administration  than  it  was  later.  On  the  whole,  we 
have  during  the  first  year  of  the  reign  the  government 
of  Halifax,  which  was  succeeded  by  that  of  Caermarthen, 
although  these  ministers  did  not  tower  quite  so  much 
above  their  colleagues  as  did  some  of  their  predecessors. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  find  any  head  of  Macaulay's  first 
Cabinet.  We  commonly  speak  of  it  as  the  Government 
of  the  Junto,  the  Junto  consisting  of  Somers,  Mon- 
tague, Russell,  and  Wharton.  And  it  is  not  incorrect  to 
speak  of  it  in  this  way,  for  it  was  the  Junto  who  con- 
trolled the  Whig  party,  and  thus  brought  about  the 
great  measures  of  the  administration.  But  in  the  Junto 
there  was  no  acknowledged  leader,  though  perhaps  a 
slight  preeminence  may  be  assigned  to  Somers.  And 
one  of  its  members,  Thomas  Wharton,  was  not  even 
included  among  the  ministers. 

Moreover,  if  the  Junto  controlled  the  party  for  the 
King,  there  were  others  who  helped  to  control  the 
King  for  the  party.  There  were  several  men,  each  one 
of  whom  had  some  claim  to  be  considered  the  principal 


80         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

»  adviser  of  William  during  the  period  of  the  Junto  rule, 
and  two  of  them  were  not  included  in  that  famous 
;  body.  First  we  have  the  Earl  of  Sunderland.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  at  this  time  the  King  put  more  confidence 
in  his  judgment  than  in  that  of  any  other  English  states- 
man, and  consulted  him  freely.  Yet  his  office  was  only 
that  of  Lord  Chamberlain,  and  this  he  held  but  a  year. 
The  best  hated  man  in  the  nation,  it  was  always  neces- 
sary to  k'eep  him  in  the  background.  While  he  directed 
the  plans  of  the  King  and  counselled  the  Whig  leaders 
in  the  interests  of  the  Whig  party,  he  could  never  have 
dreamed  of  gaining  the  position  of  a  leader  of  that 
party.  Then  there  was  the  Duke  of  Shrewsbury,  who 
I  might  have  had  the  King's  confidence  as  well  as  his 
affection  to  the  full,  and  who  undoubtedly  would  have 
been  an  acceptable  party  leader,  but  whose  poor  health, 
combined  with  a  troubled  conscience,^  forbade  him  to 
take  the  prominent  part  he  might  have  taken. 

%\     As   there  was   no    Prime   Minister,  Cabinet  appoint- 

Iments  were  of  course  in  the  hands  of  the  King.     He 

i  would  delegate    this   authority  neither  to  any  member 

I  of  the  Cabinet,  nor  to  the  Cabinet  as  a  whole.     When 

the  ministers  insisted  that  Wharton  must  be  Secretary 

of  State,  William  replied  that  he  would  like  to  reserve 

to   himself  the   right   of  appointing  his  own  servants ; 

that  if  they  had  presented  three  candidates  to  him  to 

1  See  p.  74,  note  2. 


THE  SECOND   STEP  8 1 

choose  from,  he  might  have  considered  it,  but  that 
he  could  not  allow  them  to  make  the  appointment.^ 
Nor  was  he  satisfied  with  appointing  to  Cabinet  posi- 
tions. We  find  the  ministers  frequently  complaining 
that  appointments  had  been  made  in  their  departments 
without  their  knowledge.  ^ 

Like  his  predecessors,  William  III.  presided  at  Cabi- 
net meetings,  although  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  was 
out  of  England  so  much,  there  were  frequent  meetings; 
of  the  Cabinet  without  him.  We  have  also  to  note 
that  during  the  administration  of  the  Junto  there  were 
informal  meetings  of  the  Whig  ministers  and  leaders 
apart  from  the  King.  Like  his  predecessors  also,  Will- 
iam did  not  consider  himself  bound  to  bring  all  matters 
of  importance  to  the  Cabinet  meetings  for  discussion. 
The  correspondence  of  the  Junto  abounds  with  com- 
plaints that  the  King  was  usurping  the  functions  of 
particular  ministers,  and  of  the  Cabinet  as  a  whole. 
Sunderland,  writing  of  the  Cabinet,  said,  "  It  would  be 
much  to  the  King's  advantage  if  he  brought  his  affairs 
to  be  debated  at  that  Council."  ^ 

^  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Sunderiand  resigned  his  position 
as  Lord  Chamberlain  because  of  the  wrath  of  the  Whig  ministers 
at  the  appointment  of  Vernon  as  Secretary  of  State,  on  his  advice, 
without  consultation  with  them.  The  dissatisfaction  of  the  Whigs 
arose  not  from  the  fact  that  Vernon  was  appointed,  but  from  the 
fact  that  Wharton  was  not  appointed. 

2  Hardwicke  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p.  461. 
G 


f 


82         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

I  Throughout  his  reign  William  remained  his  own  min- 
Jister  for  foreign  affairs.  Matters  connected  with  his 
'  own  department  were  much  more  frequently  kept  from 
the  Cabinet  than  were  other  matters.  He  and  Port- 
land arranged  all  the  prehminaries  of  the  First  Parti- 
tion Treaty  without  consulting  any  Englishman.  Then 
Somers,  as  Lord  Chancellor,  and  Vernon,  as  Secretary 
of  State,  were  taken  into  the  secret.  Somers  was  em- 
powered to  confer  with  any  colleagues  whose  advice 
might  be  considered  desirable.  Several  of  the  minis- 
ters were  summoned  to  a  consultation  on  the  subject. 
Portland  communicated  the  treaty  to  them.  Objections 
were  made  to  parts  of  it,  "  but  Lord  Portland's  con- 
stant answer  was  that  nothing  could  be  altered ;  upon 
which  one  of  the  company  (whose  name  is  not  men- 
tioned) said  that  if  that  were  the  case,  he  saw  no  rea- 
son why  they  were  troubled  with  it."^  It  was  finally 
decided  to  draw  up  a  paper  which  was  sent  to  the 
King.  In  this  paper* the  ministers  merely  acknowl- 
1  edged  their  master's  superior  wisdom  in  all  foreign 
affairs,  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  temper  of 
j  the  House  of  Commons  was  not  so  favorable  as  that 
of  the  former  House  had  been,  and  therefore  it  would 
probably  not  be  possible  to  make  war.  They  added 
that  they  understood  that  the  desired  peace  could  not  be 
maintained  without  concessions  to  France ;  but  whether 

1  Burnet,  Vol.  IV.  p.  427.     Hardwicke's  note. 


THE   SECOND   STEP  83 

the  concessions  of  the  treaty  of  Loo  were  too  great  or 
too  small,  they  would  leave  to  his  Majesty's  judgment. 
Later,  we  find  the  disaffected  House  of  Commons  mak- 
ing great  efforts  to  punish  ministers  who  had  become 
offensive  to  it  for  their  share  in  this  treaty ;  but  it  could 
not  prove  that  any  one  except  Somers  and  Portland 
could  be  held  in  any  way  responsible.  Somers  pleaded 
that  he  had  affixed  the  seal  under  the  authority  of  a 
sign  manual  warrant,  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of 
State ;  that  while  he  had  offered  an  opinion  about  the 
treaty,  he  was  not  responsible  for  it;  and,  in  short, 
that  he  had  obeyed  the  King.  Evidently  the  doctrine 
of  ministerial  responsibility  had  not  advanced  very  far 
when  a  chancellor  could  make  such  a  plea  as  this. 

Owing  to   the  fact  that  throughout  this  reign  there 
was  considerable  doubt  as  to  who  was  in  the  Cabinet, 
it  was  the  easier  for  the   King  to  transact  business  of 
state   without   consulting    particular   ministers.     In   the 
debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1692  before  quoted,  I 
we  have  noticed  that  attention  was  called  to  the  diffi-  i 
culty   of    ascertaining   who   was    a   Cabinet    councillor. 
That  this  defect  was  not  remedied  in  1695,  is  proved 
by  a  letter  written  by  Sunderland  to  Somers  in  Novem- 
ber,   1 701.      In    this   letter    Sunderland    expresses   the  i 
desire  to  see  the  Cabinet  limited  in  numbers  and  regu- 
larly consulted,  "none  to  be  of  the  Cabinet  but  those 
who  have  in  some  sort  a  right  to  enter  there  by  their 


84        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

employments."  He  gives  a  list  of  those  who,  in  his 
opinion,  should  be  considered  as  having  a  right  to  be 
present  at  Cabinet  meetings.  It  includes  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  the  Lord  Keeper,  the  Lord  Presi- 
dent, the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Lord  Steward,  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  and  the 
two  Secretaries.  Also  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland 
was  to  be  invited,  when  he  was  in  England.  "If  the 
King  would  have  more,  it  should  be  the  First  Com- 
missioner of  the  Admiralty  and  the  Master-General  of 
the  Ordinance.  If  these  two  are  excluded,  none  can 
take  it  ill  that  he  is  not  admitted."^^^ 

There  is  no  evidence  that  any  attempt  was  made  to 
carry  out  Sunderland's  suggestion.  The  King  did  not 
wish  that  the  Cabinet  should  be  too  sharply  defined  a 
body.  Even  when  officials  were  fully  acknowledged  to 
be  Cabinet  ministers,  he  reserved  to  himself  the  right 
of  consulting  or  not  consulting  them  as  he  pleased. 
Sometimes  he  would  call  together  the  whole  body  of 
ministers,  except  the  one  or  two  whom  he  did  not 
wish  to  see.  He  would  excuse  himself  for  not  invit- 
ing these  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  a  Cabinet 
Council.  Thus,  he  had  promised  Lord  Normanby  that 
he  should  be  summoned  to  Cabinet  meetings.  But 
when  he  went  abroad  in  1694,  he  left  instructions  that 
there  should  be  no  meetings  of  the  Cabinet  until  his 
1  Hardwicke  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p.  461. 


THE  SECOND  STEP  85 

return,  but  that  "  Lords  should  be  summoned,  some- 
times one,  sometimes  another,  as  they  should  be 
judged  most  proper  for  the  business  they  were  to 
advise  about."  When  a  meeting  was  held  of  the  Lord 
Keeper,  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  two  Secretaries,  Port- 
land and  Sidney,  Normanby  complained  that  he  was 
left  out.  The  King  answered  that  there  was  a  distinc- 
tion "  between  Cabinet  meetings  and  meetings  of  great 
officers  of  state,  summoned  to  consult  on  some  secret 
and  important  affairs."  ^  There  were,  during  this  reign, 
ministers  who  were  systematically  not  consulted.  When 
Sidney  was  made  Secretary  of  State  in  1691,  Caermar- 
then  remarked  that  he  had  been  put  in  like  a  foot- 
man in  a  box  at  a  theatre,  only  to  keep  the  place 
until  his  betters  came  to  claim  it.^  Macaulay  says  that 
when  Trenchard  was  Secretary  of  State  in  1693,  ^^s 
functions  resembled  those  of  a  police  officer,  rather 
than   those  of  a  Cabinet  minister.^ 

As   an   offset   to    the    King's    failure   to   consult   his 
Cabinet  must  be  placed  the  reluctance  of  the  Cabinet  1  J 
to   give   advice  on  some  occasions   when    it   was   con-  j 
suited.     Thus,  when,  in    1694,   the   question   was    sub- 
mitted to  it  as  to  whether   the  fleet   should   remain  in 
the  Mediterranean,  Shrewsbury  tells  us  that   the  minis- 

1  Cox,  "  Shrewsbury  Correspondence,"  pp.  34,  38. 

2  Macaulay,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  IV.  p.  105. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  439. 


86        CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ters  were  "unanimous  in  no  one  thing  so  much  as  in 
resolving  to  give  no  judgment."  ^ 

1  The  fact  that  the  members  of  the  Junto  were  bound 
together  by  ties  both  of  poHtics  and  of  friendship  pro- 
duced a  unanimity  in  the  administration  such  as  had 
not  before  been  attained.  But  this  was  temporary  and 
almost  accidental.  That  the  principle  of  the  solidarity 
of  the  Cabinet  had  .not  advanced  much  farther  than 
under  previous  administrations,  was  made  evident  by 
the  proceedings  in  connection  with  the  Partition  Treaty. 
The  House  of  Commons  did  not  attempt  to  hold  the 
ministers  as  a  body  responsible  for  that  treaty,  merely 
because  it  had  been  negotiated  while  they  were  in 
power.  The  effort  was  to  prove  the  responsibility  of 
individual  ministers. 

As  has  been  indicated,  the  one  step  that  had  been 

taken  in   advance  was   in   the  acknowledgment  of  the 

principle    that    the    ministers   should   be   chosen   from 

i  among  the  Parliamentary  leaders  of  the  time,  and  there- 

1  fore  in  some  sense  responsible  to  Parliament.     But  it 

was  by  no  means  perceived  at  the  time  that  this  change 

;must  ultimately  mean  the  absorption  by  Parliament  .pf  all 

the  functions  of  government.     Thus,  when  a  clause  was 

introduced  into  the  oath  of  abjuration  to  maintain  the 

government  by  King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  Burnet,  true 

Whig  though  he  was,  was  shocked.     He  declared  that 

1  Cox,  "  Shrewsbury  Correspondence,"  p.  67. 


THE   SECOND   STEP  %J 

this  was  a  barefaced  republican  notioiij  for  the  Lords  and 
Commons,  while   a   part  of  the  Constitution,  and   the 
legislative  body  were  no  part  of  the  government.     And 
while  it  was   acknowledged   that   the  minister  must  be  \ 
in   some    sense   a   Parliamentary   leader,   the    personal  I 
judgments  and  inclinations  of  the  sovereign  still  all  but  i 
determined  his  appointment.     Previous  to  1695  the  pre-f 
vailing  idea  had  been  that  the  minister  was  appointed  byl 
and  therefore  served  the  King  alone.     From  that  time' 
for  more  than   a   century  the  understanding  was  that,  < 
being  in  some  sense  appointed  by  both  King  and  Parlia-  'i 
ment,  he  was  somehow  to  manage  to  serve  both.     In  the 
frantic   endeavor  to  serve  two  masters,  many  ministers 
and  many  ministries  came   to  grief.     This  very  Junto 
ministry,  in  the  matter  of  the  standing  army,  tried  to 
effect  a  compromise  between  the  wishes  of  the  King  and 
those  of  Parliament,  and  so  to  a  certain  extent  lost  the 
favor  of  both. 

While  it  was  deemed  better  that  the  ministers  at  the 
time   of  appointment   should   be   able   to   command   a 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  they  were  under 
no  necessity  of  resigning  when  they  were  no  longer  able 
to  do  so.     We  see  this  exemphfied  in  the  case  of  the 
Cabinet  that  we  are  studying.     The  elections  of  1698 » 
showed  a  decided  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  country  \ 
toward  the  government.     The  ministers  were  no  longer  ; 
able   to   control   the   Lower   House.      We  find  Onslow 


88         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

writing,  "  Mr.  Montague  (for  what  reason  I  know  not) 
did  not  exert  himself  for  two  seasons  together  in  the 
Commons,  and  suffered  Harley  and  his  friends  to  take 
the  lead  even  while  continuing  in  the  King's  service."  ^ 
But  when  we  find  Vernon  writing  to  Shrewsbury  that 
the  ministers  have  had  a  division  of  which  they  need  not 
'  be  ashamed^  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  for  the  govern- 
ment against  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  for  the  oppo- 
sition^ we  are  not  sjirprised  that  Montague  let  Harley 
and  his  friends  take  the  lead.  There  was  no  question 
of  allowing  it.  He  could  not  have  done  otherwise. 
Yet  the  ministers  did  not  resign.  It  is  possible  that  for 
a  short  time  they  were  justified  in  not  doing  so.  For 
while  they  were  certainly  in  the  minority,  it  was  doubt- 
ful whether  any  set  of  men  could  command  a  working 
majority.  But  soon  the  disaffection  spread.  Yet  the 
Junto  waited  for  impeachments,  for  addresses  to  the 
King  asking  for  their  removal,  and  even  then  did  not 
give  up  their  offices  until  William,  being  no  longer  able 
to  stand  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  him,  and  in 
some  instances  feeling  himself  considerably  aggrieved 
by  them,  dismissed  them,  not,  however,  in  a  body,  but 
one  by  one. 

Perhaps  we  can  understand  a  little  better  why  minis- 
ters as  clear-sighted  as  Somers  and  Montague  did  not 
recognize  the  necessity  of  quitting  office  when  they  could 

1  Burnet,  Vol.  IV.  p.  441,  note. 


I 


THE   SECOND   STEP  89 

no  longer  control  the  Lower  House,  when  we  remember/ 
that  that  House  was  still  the  Lower  House  in  fact  as  I 
well  as  in  name.  An  able  commoner  looked  forward 
not  so  much  to  leading  his  own  house  as  to  being  ele- 
vated to  the  House  of  Lords.^  And  the  House  of  Lords, 
which  for  two  generations  after  the  Revolution  was 
almost  steadily  Whig,  continued  to  support  the  Junto 
after  the  Commons  had  made  their  displeasure  very 
evident. 

Remembering  that  Cabinet  government  is  essentially 
party  government,  we  notice  as  one  more  link  in  our 
story,  that  during  the  period  of  the  Junto  rule  the  Whigs 
instituted  and  maintained  a  discipline  in  their  ranks  not 
before  known.  The  Whig  members  of  Parliament  made 
a  practice  of  assembling  to  consider  important  matters 
whenever  the  occasion  seemed  to  require  it.  Some 
of  these  meetings  were  very  large,  others  more  select. 
They  formed  the  basis  of  a  system  of  party  organization 
never  before  known,  but  since  adopted  and  maintained 
by  every  party,  and  even  every  considerable  section 
of  a  party. 

When  it  became  evident  that  the  Junto  could  not  hold 
office  much  longer,  Somers  wrote  to  Shrewsbury  that  the 
new  ministry  would  probably  be  a  "pieced  business." 
This,  he  said,  would  be  necessitated  by  the  King's  "prej- 

1  See  article  by  Professor  Thorold  Rogers  on  the  "  House  of 
Lords  "  in  the  North  American  Review^  Vol.  131. 


■■> 


90         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

udice  to  some,  and  fondness  to  others,  and  the  impossi- 
bilky  of  finding  a  set  of  Tories  who  would  unite."  ^  And 
a  pieced  business  the  new  ministry  was.  This  was  partly 
due,  as  Somers  had  foreseen,  to  the  fact  that,  owing  to 
the  lack  of  discipline  in  the  Tory  ranks,  it  was  impossi- 
ble to  find  a  set  of  Tories  capable  of  working  together. 
But  it  was  also  due  in  great  measure  to  William  himself, 
and  perhaps  to  something  more  in  him  than  "  his  prej- 
udice to  some  and  his  fondness  for  others."  As  has 
*  been  said  before,  he  did  nSt  really  believe  in  putting  the 
government  into  the  hands  of  a  party,  and  did  not  mean 
to  d,o  so,  unless  he  were  forced. 

After  three  years  of  a  weak,  hybrid  administration,  we 
find  Sunderland  coming  to  the  front  with  his  common- 
sense  advice  again.     The  offices,  he  said,  must  all  be  in 
j  the  hands  of  one  party,  and  the  Whigs  were  again  in  a 

position  to  urge  that  they  be  the  preferred  party.  For 
the  discredited  Junto,  as  soon  as  they  left  the  ministry, 
and  became  leaders  of  the  opposition,  regained  in  great 
measure  the  power  which  they  had  lost  by  insisting  upon 
holding  a  position  after  their  ability  to  fill  it  acceptably 
had  gone.  Still  William  hesitated  to  bring  them  again 
into  office,  giving  the  curious  reason  that  if  he  appointed 
a  Whig  ministry,  and  they  disappointed  him,  there  would 
be  no  one  else  to  whom  he  could  turn ;  whereas  there 
was  a  slight  chance  of  the  Tories  being  able  and  willing 

1  Hardwicke  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p.  35. 


THE  SECOND  STEP  9 1 

to  manage  things  in  a  desirable  manner,  and  if  they 
failed,  he  would  still  have  the  Whigs  to  fall  back  upon. 
At  last,  however,  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  Somers 
and  Sunderland  were  in  the  right,  and  having  promised 
Somers  that  he  would  never  trust  the  Tories  again,  he 
began  to  form  a  Whig  administration.  Before  his  plans, 
were  completed,  he  died. 

It   remains  to   notice  two   attempts   of  a  retrograde 
nature  that  were  made  during  this  reign.  '  The  first  is  to  i 
be  found  in  the   place  bills  that  were  introduced  into  \ 
Parliament.     It  was  some  time  before  Parliament  recog-  \ 
nized  the  advantage  to  itself  of  having  ministers  chosen  V 
from  among  its  own  members.     The  Commons  felt  that*  : 
in  the  days  when  the  ministers  served  the  King  alone, 
their  presence  in  the  House  of  Commons  had  not  been 
promotive  of  Hberty.     They  did  not  realize  that  times 
were  changed ;  that  the  ministers,  who  were  now  recog- 
nizing a  responsibility  to  both  Crown  and   Parliament^ 
would  soon  be  responsible  to  Parliament  alone.     There- 1 
fore  we  find  quite  a  strenuous  effort  made  to  exclude  all  I 
placemen  fi-om  the  Lower  House.     During  the  reign  of 
William,  three  place  bills  were  brought  forward  in  Parlia- 
ment.    One   of  these   was   thrown   out   by   the   Lords. 
One   after  being  greatly  amended  was   vetoed   by  the 
King.     The  third  did  not  pass  the  Commons.     Not  dis- 
couraged by  these  failures,  a  clause  excluding  placemen 
from  the  Commons  was  included  in  the  Act  of  Settle- 


92         CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ment.  This  never  went  into  effect,  being  repealed  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Anne. 

Such  a  place  bill,  if  enforced,  would  have  established 
an  opposition  between  the  executive  and  legislative,  just 
at  a  time  when  it  was  becoming  easier  to  bring  about 
more  harmony  between  them.  Had  it  gone  into  effect, 
the  probabiUty  is  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministers 
would  have  sat  in  the  Upper  House,  but  perhaps  would 
not  have  been  considered  as  leaders  of  that  House  any 
more  than  in  former  times.  And  there  probably  would 
always  have  been  some  ministers  without  any  connection 
with  either  House.  Both  executive  and  legislative  would 
have  been  weakened,  but  undoubtedly  the  legislative 
would  have  suffered  most.  For  the  King,  supported  by 
his  ministers,  that  is,  by  the  trained  statesmanship  of  the 
nation,  would  have  been  at  a  great  advantage  as  com- 
pared with  a  Parliament  without  leadership  and  without 
organization. 

There  was  a  real  disease  in  connection  with  the  pres- 
ence of  office-holders  in  the  Commons,  although  its 
nature  was  not  at  that  time  fully  understood.  For  while 
the  passing  of  place  bills  which  excluded  ministers  from 
the  Lower  House  must  have  had  the  most  disastrous 
effect  upon  English  constitutional  liberty,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  retaining  of  a  vast  number  of  inferior  officers  in 
that  house  was  almost  as  serious  a  menace  to  the  liberties 
of  the  subject.     The  fact  that  they  held  their  positions 


/ 


THE  SECOND  STEP  93 

and  drew  their  salaries  through  the  favor  of  the  Crown, 
naturally  attached  them  to  the  court  interests ;  and  it  is 
easy  to  conceive  that  a  despotic  sovereign  might  have 
worked  his  will  through  a  House  of  Commons  packed 
with  pensioners  and  placemen.  The  giving  places  and 
pensions  to  members  of  Parliament  was  the  worst  kind 
of  bribery,  for  as  a  statesman  of  the  reign  of  George  II. 
remarked,  "  A  bribe  is  given  for  a  particular  job ;  a  pen- 
sion is  a  constant,  continual  bribe."  ^  Indeed,  through 
the  presence  of  numerous  inferior  officers  in  the  Com- 
mons, the  very  good  which  was  accompHshed  by  having 
ministers  in  that  House  might  have  been  undone.  For 
the  ministers  are  the  leaders  of  the  majority  of  the  house  ; 
but  through  patronage  bestowed  upon  members,  the 
court  might  always  have  commanded  this  majority,  and 
thus  always  have  secured  ministers  entirely  in  its  inter- 
ests. And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  during  the  hundred  years 
following  the  Revolution,  this  was  often  done. 

Yet,  during  the  period  that  placemen  sat  in  such 
numbers  in  the  House  of  Commons,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  they  were,  in  a  measure,  useful  in  helping 
on  the  development  that  was  taking  place.  For  Cab-.' 
inet  government  means  strict  party  government,  the  I 
adherence  by  the  members  of  each  party  to  their 
chosen  leaders.  In  the  time  of  William  III.  the  s^it 
of  faction  predoininated ;  leadership  was  a  new  thing  in 

1  Halifax,  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XI.  col.  522. 


94         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

the  House.  It  was  impossible  to  find  a  majority  who 
would  follow  the  lead  of  any  one.  Offices  were  there- 
fore given  as  a  mode  of  securing  allegiance  to  the 
party  chiefs,  and  ministers  felt  that  they  had  a  pecul- 
iar right  to  rely  upon  the  support  of  office-holders  in 
their  party. 
^i|  VThe  other  backward  movement  is  to  be  found  in  an 
I    article  of  the  Act  of  Settlement  of   1700,  which  reads, 

I  .*'From  and  after  the  time  that  the  further  Kmitations 
I 

by  this  act  shall  take  effect,  all  matters  and  things  re- 
lating to  the  well-governing  of  this  kingdom  which  are 
properly  cognizable   in   the   Privy  Council  by  the  laws 
and   customs    of  this   realm,  shall  be  transacted  there, 
and  all  resolutions  thereupon  shall  be  signed  by  such 
'of  the  Privy  Council  as  shall  advise  and  consent  to  the 
\  I  same."     This  would  have  meant  the  revival  of  the  Privy 
j  I  Council,  the  absolute  annihilation  of  the  Cabinet,  and 
\  '  the  prevention  of  anything  like  soHdarity  in  the  admin- 
istration.     This,  too,  was  never  carried   out.      It  was 
repealed  in  1705  with  the  article  excluding  placemen. 
I  By  that  time  the  country  was  somewhat  accustomed  to 
ICabinet  government  —  appreciated  its  convenience,  and 
realized    to    some    extent    at    least    that   the   depend- 
ence of  ministers  upon   Parliament  was  a  better  safe- 
/  guard   against   tyranny  than  even  government  by  Privy 
I  Council,    with    each    councillor    signing    what    he    had 
I  advised.     As  for  this  latter  provision,  Burnet  says  that 


/ 


/ 


THE  SECOND   STEP  95 

it  was  evident  that  no  one  could  be  found  to  take  office 
upon  such  a  condition. 

Among  the  Somers  Tracts  there  is  one  bearing  the 
title  "  A  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of  the  Commons  of 
England."      It  is  dated  1701,  and  has  been  attributed 
by  some   to   Sir   Humphrey   Mackworth,  by   others   to ' 
Robert    Harley.      The    author,   whoever   he   may  have 
been,  gives  us  a  picture  of  the  Constitution  of  England 
under  William  III.  as  it  appeared  to  the  ablest  states- 
men of  the  day.     Just  as  the  originators  of  the  Ameri-  ^ 
can  Constitution  thought  its  system  of  checks  and  bal-  \ 
ances  its  best  feature,  so  this  writer  thinks  the  checks    1 
and   balances   of   the    English   Constitution  the  feature 
which  entitles  it  to  special  admiration.     He  writes  with 
evident  pride  and  approval:  "For  the  supreme  powers 
is  not  lodged  in^ne,  lest  he  be  arbitrary ;  nor  in  two,  < 
lest  they  shoul^^^kout,  and  there  should  be  none  to 
interpose  betwel^^pm.      But  such  is  the  happy  Con- 
stitution of  this  government,  that  it  consisting  of  three 
distinct   branches   of  the    supreme    authority,  who    are 
mutual  securities  and  checks  upon  one  another  for  the 
common  safety,  if  a  misunderstanding  happen  between 
any  two,  there   is   still   one   left  whose  interest  it  is  to 
reconcile  the  difference.      And  if  any  one  endeavor  to 
advance  their  power  beyond  its  just  bounds  and  Hmits, 
there  are  always  two  against  that  one,  to  preserve  the 
just  bounds  of  the  Constitution." 


96        CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

He  fully  appreciates  the  nature  of  the  problem  be- 
fore England  at  the  time,  namely,  to  provide  security 
against  misgovernment  on  the  part  of  the  sovereign, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  avoid  the  general  disturbance 
,  which  must  accompany  any  attempt  to  call  the  King 
\  personally  to  account.  He  therefore  enunciates  most 
clearly  that  the  ministers,  and  not  the  King,  are  to 
be  held  responsible  for  any  mismanagement.  "  In  all 
monarchical  governments,"  he  says,  "it  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  common  good  to  preserve  a  right  un- 
derstanding between  the  King  and  the  people.  There- 
fore it  is  necessary  that  in  all  such  governments,  whatever 
mismanagement  happen,  no  blame  or  wrong  be  imputed 
to  the  King."  But  it  is  quite  as  necessary  that  no 
wrong  be  done  to  the  people.  "In  order  to  preserve 
a  right  understanding  between  Kin|^nd  people,"  he 
goes  on  to  say,  "and  that  no  m^^^fcgement  be  im- 
puted to  the  King,  nor  yet  any  wr^^pK)ne  to  the  peo- 
(ple  without  a  remedy,  it  is  necessary  that  all  public  acts 
of  government  be  performed  by  public  officers ;  for  if 
;  done  by  the  King,  and  any  mismanagement  happens, 
either  the  people  must  lose  their  rights,  or  the  blame 
be  imputed  to  the  King ;  neither  of  which  ought  to  be 
admitted.  Therefore  these  public  officers  ought  to  be 
accountable  for  all  public  acts  done  by  them  both  to 
the  King  and  to  the  people." 

Furthermore,  he  wishes  it  to  be  understood  that  "  the 


THE   SECOND   STEP  97 

exercising  all  public  acts  of  government  by  public  offi- 
cers is  no  restraint_upoiL_the  just  prerogative  of  the 
King.  First,  because  the  King  has  the  choice  of  them 
from  time  to  time  at  his  will  and  pleasure.  Secondly, 
because  the  ministers  are  bound  to  obey  the  King  in 
all  lawful  things." 

He  goes  on  to  state  just  how  the  minister  is  to 
show  that  he  feels  the  responsibility  of  his  position. 
He  says  :  "  It  is  not  only  the  duty  but  the  interest  of 
every  minister,  for  his  own  safety,  to  inform  his  Maj- 
esty of  the  legaHty  of  all  proceedings.  By  words,  by 
an  humble  declaration  of  the  sense  of  the  law;  and, 
if  that  will  not  prevail,  then  to  convince  his  Majesty 
of  his  sincerity  by  his  actions,  that  is,  by  a  resignation 
of  his  office.  All  good  princes  will  be  convinced"T)y 
this  rational,  honorable,  and  self-denying  argument,  and 
will  rather  commend  the  fideHty  of  the  minister  than 
be  offended  with  him.  But  if  it  should  happen  here- 
after, in  a  future  reign,  that  the  prince  will  not  be 
advised,  but  shall  accept  the  resignation  of  his  officer, 
that  minister  will  have  the  satisfaction  of  suffering  in 
a  good  cause,  for  the  safety  of  the  country,  and  gain 
very  great  honor  to  himself  and  his  family.  And  the 
people  of  England  will  have  the  same  securities  to 
their  rights  and  liberties  they  had  before.  For  if  the 
succeeding,  rninisler. betray  his  trust,  he  must  expect 
to  answer  first  in  the  House  of  Peers,  on  the  impeach- 

H 


98         CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ment  of  the  Commons.  And  if  he  also,  in  humble 
manner,  desire  to  be  excused  from  executing  the  same 
unlawful  commands,  to  the  ruin  or  prejudice  of  his 
people,  the  King  (who  cannot  exercise  public  act  of 
government  but  by  his  ministers)  will  at  last  observe  the 
necessity  of  yielding  to  the  law  of  the  land.  The  exer- 
cising therefore  all  acts  of  government  by  public  min- 
isters is  so  far  from  being  a  prejudice  that  it  is  a  great 
/  advantage  and  security  both  to  the  King  and  to  his 
^ ,  people.  To  the  King,  because  no  mismanagement  can 
/  be  imputed  to  him,  but  to  his  ministers.  To  the  people, 
!  because  they  may  have  redress  from  their  grievances 
without  any  misunderstanding  with  the  prince.  By  this 
means  the  King  may  always  reign  in  the  heart  of  his 
subjects,  and  the  subjects  always  preserve  their  rights 
without  offence  to  the  King."  Evidently  public 
opinion  had  changed  somewhat  since  the  days  when 
Clarendon  and  Halifax  made  animadversions  on  the 
King  who  delegated  too  much  of  his  authority  to 
ministers. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  way  in  which  a  minister 
is  to  be  called  to  account  is  still  always  impeachment. 
Over  and  over  again  this  writer  insists  upon  the  right 
of  the  Commons  to  impeach  an  unworthy  pubhc  servant. 
Over  and  over  again  he  declares  that  the  King  has  no 
right  to  interfere  in  such  a  case.  The  Commons  be- 
lieved that  their  liberties  rested  mainly  upon  this  power 


THE   SECOND   STEP  99 

of  impeachment.  One  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of 
Settlement  was  that  "  no  pardon  under  the  Great  Seal 
of  England  be  pleaded  to  an  impeachment  by  the 
Commons  of  England." 

Thus  no  future  minister  was  even  to  suppose  that  it 
would  be  an  argument  in  his  favor  to  plead  the  King's^ 
pardon,  as  Danby  had  done.  It  was  some  time  before 
it  was  understood  that  the  same  purpose  might  be 
accomplished  by  easier  and  gentler  means  than  impeach- 
ment, and  that  impeachment  is  too  dangerous  a  weapon 
to  be  used  when  the  desired  object  can  be  effected 
without  it. 

Like  other  statesmen  of  his  age,  the  author  of  this 
tract  by  no  means  approves  of  the  doing  away  with  the 
dehberative  functions  of  the  Privy  Council.  He  writes  : 
"First  there  are  great  officers  of  state  to  observe  and 
watch,  that  nothing  pass  to  the  prejudice  of  the  King  and 
of  the  people.  Secondly,  if  a  matter  be  too  high  for 
their  determination,  it  is  considered  by  the  King  and  his 
Council,  where  the  matter  is  not  only  determined  by 
a  greater  number,  but  also  upon  a  solemn  debate  and 
hearing  of  the  arguments  of  all  parties,  which  may  be 
compared  to  a  consultation  of  able  lawyers  and  physi- 
cians, conducing  very  much  to  the  safety  of  the  public. 
But  if  the  matter  be  of  such  weight  or  difficulty  that  the 
Council  do  not  think  fit  to  determine  by  themselves, 
or  cannot  come  to  a  safe  resolution,  then  they  humbly 


lOO       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

advise  the  King  to  refer  that  affair  to  his  great  Council 
assembled  in  Parliament.  And  here  it  may  be  observed 
that  an  error  has  formerly  crept  into  this  part  of  our 
Constitution,  and  that  is,  by  determining  matters  of  the 
highest  importance,  without  advising  with  either  of  the 
established  councils.  The  original  of  which  in  the  late 
reign  seems  to  have  derived  from  the  precedent  of 
France,  where  it  was  first  invented  as  an  introduction 
to  an  arbitrary  government;  and  'tis  to  be  doubted 
that  they  were  no  true  friends  to  the  Constitution  of  this 
government  who  first  brought  that  evil  custom  into 
England.  .  .  .  'Tis  true  former  princes  did  sometimes 
advise  with  particular  persons  before  they  offered  a 
matter  to  the  Council  to  be  debated  and  determined; 
but  it  is  an  innovation  by  evil  ministers  that  war  and 
peace  should  be  finally  concluded  in  a  secret  cabal,  and 
only  pass  through  the  Privy  Council  for  form's  sake, 
as  a  conduit  pipe  to  convey  those  resolutions  with 
authority  to  the  people,  which  is  an  abuse  to  the  Con- 
stitution. All  proclamations  for  declaring  war,  etc.,  are 
constantly  set  forth  in  the  name  of  the  King,  with  the 
advice  of  his  Council  {which  shows  that  it  ought  to  be 
so)f  when  perhaps  the  war  was  resolved  in  a  private 
cabal,  and  only  declared  in  a  Privy  Council,  and  pub- 
lished with  that  authority  to  the  people,  which  is  an 
abuse  to  the  Constitution.  ...  It  is  therefore  a  noble 
resolution   in   his    Majesty   to   restore  to   England   the 


THE  SECOND  STEP  1 01 

practice   of   their   ancient   Constitution,   to   repair  the 
breaches  and  innovations  brought  in  upon  them  during 
the  late  reigns,  and  not  only  to  declare,  but  debate  and  , 
transact  all  matters  of  state  in  the  Privy  Council."  ) 


CHAPTER  V 

POSITION   OF  THE   CABINET  UNDER  ANNE 

Further  Cabinet  development  impossible  until  doctrine  of  royal 
impersonality  was  established  —  "William  III.  followed  by  a  suc- 
cession of  three  weak  sovereigns  —  Yet  Anne  desirous  of  main- 
taining her  personal  rule  —  More  anxious  to  appoint  ministers 
than  to  control  Parliament  —  Appoints  a  Tory  ministry  at  the 
beginning  of  her  reign  —  A  Whig  ministry  is  gradually  forced 

•  upon  her  —  Appointment  of  Somers —  Harley  forced  out  of  the 
Cabinet  —  Anne's  last  ministry  appointed  by  herself — Dismissal 
of  Godolphin  —  The  Queen  insists  on  retaining  the  Duchess  of 
Sunderland  in  her  service  —  Dismissal  of  Oxford  —  The  Queen 
tries  to  control  minor  appointments  —  Foreign  envoys  obtain 
private  audiences  of  her  —  She  is  responsible  for  the  restrain- 
ing orders  —  And  for  the  proclamation  against  the  Pretender  — 
Oxford  throws  responsibility  of  his  action  on  Queen  —  State- 
ment of  ministerial  responsibility  in  House  of  Lords  —  Anne 
'  the  last  sovereign  to  use  the  veto  —  The  word  Cabinet  used  in 
address  of  House  of  Lords  to  Queen  —  Debate  on  the  Cabinet 
in  the  House  of  Lords  —  Ratification  of  the  peace  of  Utrecht  by 
the  Council  —  Revival  of  Council  at  death  of  Anne  —  Members 
of  House  of  Commons  on  taking  office  required  to  submit  them- 
selves for  reelection  —  Creation  of  twelve  new  peers  in  1711  — 
Influence  of  Parliament  upon  appointments  —  Ministers  some- 
102 


POSITION  OF   THE   CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      103 

times  fail  to  take  the  position  of  Parliamentary  leaders  —  Occa- 
sional Conformity  Bill  —  Act  of  Union  —  Schism  Act — De-  '' 
velopment  of  office  of  Prime  Minister  —  Cabinet  meetings — .^^ 
Uncertainty  as  to  who  had  a  right  to  attend  —  Important 
affairs  often  not  discussed  in  Cabinet  meetings  —  Harley's  din- 
ners-—  Throughout  the  reign  of  Anne  hybrid  administrations 
—  This  partly  accidental  —  And  partly  of  set  purpose  —  De- 
velopment of  party  organization  —  Summary  of  progress  during 
the  reign. 


W 


HEN  Anne  came  to  the  throne,  it  had  been  prac- 
tically settled,  although  there  were  still  some  pro- 
tests  against   it,    that    the   work   and    responsibiUty   of 
carrying  on  the  government  were  to  belong  no  longer  to 
the  Privy  Council  as  a  whole,  but  to  a  small  committee 
appointed  from  its  members,  and  that  this  committee 
was  to  be  chosen  with  considerable  reference  to  its  abil- 
ity to  command  Parliamentary  support.     Further  prog- 
ress in  Cabinet   development, — the  full   establishment* 
of  the  doctrine  that  the  minister  is  responsible  to  Parlia-ij 
ment  and  not  to  the  Crown,  —  the  evolution  of  the  office  1 
of  Prime  Minister,  and  the  development  of  the  principle^ 
of  the  solidarity  of  the  Cabinet,  could  only  be  accom-| 
plished  as  tHe"theory  of  the  royal  impersonality  was  estab-  \ 
lished.    jAnd  the  best  thing  that  could  have  happened  to 
England  at  the  stage  which  we  are  considering  did  hap- 
pen to  her,  —  namely  a  succession  of  three  weak  sover-s 
eigns.     During  these  reigns,  as  Mr.  Hallam  puts  it,  *'  the 
Crown  desists  altogether  not  merely  frorfi  the  threaten- 


f 


104       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ing  and  objurgatory  tone  of  the  Stuarts,  but  from  that 
dissatisfaction  sometimes  apparent  in  the  language  of 
William,  and  the  vessel  seems  riding  in  smooth  waters, 
moved  by  other  impulses,  and  liable  perhaps  to  other 
dangers  than  those  of  the  ocean  wave  and  the  tempest." 
Yet  WilHam's  immediate  successor  was  by  no  means 
inclined  to  surrender  her  personal  rule  to  the  ministers, 
j  In  addition  to  her  natural  temperament,  Anne's  religious) 
\  feeHngs  gave  her  a  sense  of  personal  responsibility.     Her 

\spiritual  adviser.  Archbishop  Sharp,  strengthened  this 
sentiment  in  her.  He  assured  her  that  she  should  look 
upon  the  government  of  England  as  a  sacred  trust,  the 
responsibility  for  which  could  not  be  transferred.     The 

^ction  of  ministerial  responsibility  might  protect  her 
from  punishment  in  this  world,  but  before  the  throne  of 
God  she  would  be  held  accountable.  She  was  especially 
reprehensible,  he  told  her,  when  she  took  into  her  service 
men  whom  she  disliked,  or  whose  measures  she  disap- 
proved. In  arguing  with  her  on  this  point,  his  son  tells 
us  that  he  used  "many  hard  words,"  accompanied  by 
prayer  that  God  would  inspire  her  with  courage,  to  assert 
the  authority  committed  to  her.^ 

y  So,  while  Anne  did  not,  like  her  predecessor,  treat 
Parliament  as  a  subordinate  to  be  sharply  reproved  when 
it  gave  occasion  for  reproof,  she  still  looked  upon  the 

1  *♦  Life  of  Archbishop  Sharp,"  by  his  son,  Thomas  Sharp,  Vol. 
I.  pp.  318-319. 


POSITION   OF   THE   CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      105 

ministers  as  personal  servants  whom  she  might  appoint  | 
and  dismiss,  and  whose  action,  while  in  office,  she  might  t 
control  at  pleasure.     It  was  quite  in  accordance  with  her  - 
character  to  be  comparatively  indifferent  to  what  Parlia- 
ment was  doing,  and  at  the  same  time  to  be  very  anxious  \ 
to  appoint  her  own  ministers.     For,  as  is  well  known,  her 
mind  was  weak,  and   her  affections  were  strong.     She  \ 
could  look  upon  nothing  save  in  a  personal  way.     Forced  | 
to   come   into   constant   contact  with  the   Cabinet,  she   ; 
naturally  wished  to  admit  to  its  membership  none  but   , 
her  personal  friends. 

As  in  those  days  administrations  were  not  changed  all  ! 
at  once,  but  piecemeal,  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  say  how   i 
many  there  were  in  any  reign,  yet   under  Anne  three    ' 
ministries  are  tolerably  distinct.     In  the  appointment  of 
each   of  these  we  see  the   royal   preference    playing  a 
prominent  part.     Anne  appointed  the  first  and  third  to 
please  herself,  though  she  would  not  have  been  able  to 
do  so  had  there  been  strong  opposition  on  the  part  of 
Parliament.     The  second  was  not  a  ministry  which  she 
would  have  chosen,  and  therefore  it  did  not  come  into 
office  so  soon  as  public  affairs  seemed  to  require  it,  but 
only  after  a  long  battle  with  the  Queen. 

Anne's  affection  for  the  Church  and  for  certain  per- 
sons made  her  a  Tory.  Therefore  the  ministers  ap- 
pointed at  the  beginning  of  her  reign  were  Tories, 
although  some  Whigs  already  in  office  were  not  turned 


I06      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

out.^  But  as  the  Tories  were  divided  among  themselves, 
and  as  most  of  them  were  unwilUng  to  support  Marlbor- 
ough's war  poHcy,  it  was  soon  evident  that  alterations 
must  be  made  in  the  Cabinet.  By  degrees,  the  leaders, 
Marlborough  and  Godolphin,  were  converted  to  the 
Whig  party,  and  a  Whig  ministry  was  formed.  But  the 
changes  were  so  gradual  tharit  is  impossible  to  say  just 
when  the  Tory  Marlborough-Godolphin  ministry  ended, 
and  the  Whig  Marlborough-Godolphin  ministry  began. 
The  latter  was  not  completely  formed  until  1 708,  when 
/?  "^Robert  Harley,  the  last  Tory,  resigned ;  but  it  had  been 
-^  -  in  process  of  formation  for  several  years  previous  to  that, 
and  the  Whig  influence  certainly  predominated  long  be- 
fore Harley  left  the  Cabinet. 


/ 


1  Appointments  at  the  beginning  of  Anne's  reign :  — 

Marlborough General  of  the  Land  Forces,  Master 

General  of  Ordonnance. 

Godolphin Lord  Treasurer. 

Nottingham  and 
Sir  Charles  Hedges 

Normanby Lord  Privy  Seal. 

Devonshire  (Whig)  .     .     .     Retained  as  Lord  Steward. 


[•     .     .     Secretaries  of  State. 


A  little  later :  — 

Buckingham 

Pembroke Lord  President. 

Harcourt Solicitor  General. 

Sir  Edward  Seymour      .     .  Comptroller  of  Household. 

Sir  John  Leveson  Gower    .  Chancellor  of  Duchy  of  Lancaster. 

Howe Joint  Paymaster. 


POSITION   OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE     lO/ 

The  ministry  was  changed  without  any  change  of  feelA 
ing  on  the  part  of  the  Queen.      The  Whigs  were  still 
under  the  leadership  of  the   able   Junto,  all   of  whose 
members  had  by  this  time  been  raised  to  the  peerage, 
Montague  as  Earl  of  Halifax,^  and  Russell  as  Earl  of 
Orford.     An  addition  had  been  made  to  their  number 
in  the  person  of  the  Earl  of  Sunderland,  a  son  of  the 
Sunderland   of  William's   reign,  and   one   of  the   most 
violent  Whigs  of  the  day.     They  forced  themselves  into 
office,  in  spite  of  the  most  strenuous  opposition  of  the 
Queen.     Hitherto,  Parliamentary  leaders  had  compelled  \ 
the  sovereign  to  dismiss  ministers.     But  this  Whig  min- 
istry of  Anne   is   the   first   example,  in   modern   times,  ^-.^ 
of  the  Crown  being  compelled  to  appoint   a   ministry  \j 
against  its  will. 

The  struggle  which  preceded  the  appointment  of 
Somers  as  Lord  President  of  the  Council  is  an  example 
of  the  way  in  which  the  Queen's  personal  inclinations 
had  to  be  overcome.  When  the  Whig  leaders  first  made 
their  demand,  Anne  was  much  distressed  by  it ;  espe- 
cially so  because  the  granting  it  would  pain  her  husband, 
who  regarded  Somers  as  the  author  of  the  attacks  which 
the  Whigs  had  made  upon  the  Admiralty,  of  which  he 

1  George  Savile,  the  Marquis  of  Halifax,  previously  alluded  to  in 
this  work,  died  in  1695,  and  his  family  in  the  male  line  had  become 
extinct.  As  he  had  introduced  Montague  to  public  business,  Mon- 
tague chose  to  take  his  title. 


I08      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

was  at  the  head.      She   therefore  answered  that  Pem- 
broke, who  held  the  position  at  the  time,  could  not  be 
removed.     The  Whigs  next  urged,  "  If  it  is  impossible 
to  make  Lord  Somers  president,  give  him  a  seat  in  the 
Cabinet  without  office."     Anne  refused.     She  wrote  to 
Marlborough  that  she  looked  upon  it  as  utter  destruc- 
tion to  herself  to  bring  Somers  into  her  service.      Still 
the   Whigs   persisted   in   their  object,  joining   at  times 
even  with  their  worst  enemies   that   they  might   defeat 
the  court  projects.  •  They  threatened  that,  if  their  wishes 
were  not  complied  with,  they  would  bring  up  the  ques- 
tion of  inviting  some  member  of  the  House  of  Hanover 
to   live   in  England.     Finally,  they  intimated  that  they 
pJV^^  would  bring  a  direct  charge  against  Prince  George  by 
*     \)name,  for  the  mismanagement   of  naval   affairs.      This 
touched  the  Queen  in  her  tenderest  point.      Her  hus- 
j  band  was  dying,  and  she  would  not  have  his  last  days 
I  troubled.     She  therefore  sullenly  yielded.     In  October, 
1708,  Somers  became  Lord  President. 

The  Whigs  were  quite  as  anxious  to  get  the  Tory 
leaders,  Harley  and  St.  John,  out  of  the  Cabinet  as 
they  were  to  get  Sunderland  and  Somers  in.  Here, 
too,  they  were  obliged  to  meet  the  resistance  of  the 
Queen,  who  yielded  only  when  she  saw  that  it  was  im- 
\.  \  possible  to  carry  on  the  government  at  all  if  she  did 
^..3Sriiot  do  so.  We  read  of  a  Cabinet  meeting  on  Sunday, 
February  8,   1708.      In  the  morning  Marlborough   and 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER    ANNE     IO9 

Godolphin  had  told  the  Queen  that  they  could  not 
attend  the  Cabinet,  or  take  part  as  ministers,  unless 
Harley  were  removed.  She  would  make  no  promise  to 
that  effect.  Therefore  Marlborough  and  Godolphin 
absented  themselves  from  the  Cabinet  meeting  in  the 
evening.  Harley  began  to  open  the  business.  The/ 
whole  Cabinet  were  grim  and  sullen.  The  Duke  01 
Somerset  muttered  twice,  "  I  do  not  see  how  we  can 
deliberate  to  any  purpose  when  neither  the  General  nor 
the  Treasurer  is  present."  The  Queen  was  silent,  but 
presently  withdrew,  leaving  the  business  of  the  day  un- 
done.    On  Wednesday  of  that  week  Harley  resigned. 

But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  instances.  Every  ap- 
pointment or  dismissal  which  took  place  while  t|iis 
famous  Whig  ministry  was  in  process  of  formation  w^as 
preceded  by  a  similar  struggle.  That  the  Whigs  were 
obliged  to  resort  to  so  many  arts  to  overcome  the  royal 
opposition,  shows  that  Cabinet  development  had  not\ 
gone  very  far.  But  the  fact  that  the  Queen  was  finally' 
forced  to  yield  to  the  wishes  of  the  stronger  party 
against  her  will,  and  that  she  did  this  without  making 
any  violent  disturbance,  proves  that  progress  had  been 
made. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  turning  out  of  ^ 
this  Whig  ministry  and  the  appointment  of  its  succesH 
sor  was  due,  in  great  measure,  to  the  personal  feelingsj 
of  Anne.      Every  one  knows  that  the  fate   of  Europe 


no       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

was  largely  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  Queen  of  Eng- 
land was  out  of  temper  with  one  lady  of  her  bedcham- 
ber, and  very  fond  of  another.  True,  Anne  probably 
could  not  have  carried  her  point,  had  not  the  changed 
temper  of  the  nation,  shown  during  and  after  the  Sa- 
cheverell  trial,  released  her  from  her  fear  of  the  Whigs. 
Yet  the  changes  just  at  that  time  were  due  almost  entirely 
\o  the  Queen's  likes  and  dishkes.      Nor  do  they  seem 

f;ven  to  have  been  made  with  the  purpose  of  form- 
ng  a  Tory  ministry.  The  idea  was  merely  to  get  rid 
of  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  and  her  intimate 
friends. 

Anne's  letter  of  dismissal  to  Godolphin  at  this  time 
is  an  interesting  evidence  of  the  fact  that  she  looked 
upon  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  as  "her  Majesty's 
servants,"  in  a  very  literal  sense.  The  letter  is  that  of 
a  mistress  dismissing  a  personal  servant  for  insolence, 
rather  than  that  of  a  sovereign  dismissing  a  minister 
of  state.  Godolphin  had  addressed  the  Queen  in  a 
petulant  way,  at  a  Cabinet  meeting.  She  wrote  to  him, 
August  8,  1 710,  "The  many  unkind  returns  which  I 
have  received  from  you,  and  especially  what  you  said 
to  me  personally  before  the  Lords,  make  it  impossible 
for  me  to  continue  you  any  longer  in  my  service." 

When,  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  administration,  the 
Tory  ministers  objected  to  the  Duchess  of  Somerset 
as  successor  to  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  in  many 


POSITION   OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      III 

of  her  positions,  the  Queen  said  that  she  did  not  see 
how  she  was  better  off  than  before,  if  she  could  not 
have  what  servants  she  pleased.  This  sounds  Hke  a 
prelude  to  the  famous  Bedchamber  Question  of  the 
reign  of  Victoria. 

In  time,  this  last  ministry  of  Anne  divided  into  two 
factions,  the  one  led  by  Robert  Harley,  created  Earl 
of  Oxford,  the  other  by  Henry  St.  John,  created  Vis- 
count Bolingbroke.  Each  of  the  leaders  made  it  his  , 
first  object  to  secure  the  favorite.  Lady  Masham,  and 
through  her  to  secure  the  Queen.  When  Bolingbroke 
finally  prevailed,  and  the  Queen,  in  1714,  dismissed 
Oxford,  she  gave  the  following  reasons  for  her  action,  — 
a  peculiar  mixture  of  state  and  personal  reasons  :  "  That 
he  neglected  all  business ;  that  he  was  very  seldom  to 
be  understood;  that  when  he  did  explain  himself,  she 
could  not  depend  upon  the  truth  of  what  he  said ;  that 
he  never  came  to  her  at  the  time  she  had  appointed ; 
that  he  often  came  drunk;  lastly,  to  crown  all,  that 
he  behaved  himself  to  her  with  bad  manners,  indecency, 
and  disrespect."  ^ 

The  personal  influence  of  the  Crown   did   not   stop  \ 
with  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  ministers.    Unlike  I 
WilHam,  Anne  had  no  definite  policy  which  she  wished  ; 
to  pursue.      So    she    hardly    held   a   controlling    hand  j 
over    her    Cabinet,   herself  acting    as  its   leader,    and  J 

1  Erasmus  Lewis  to  Swift,  July  7,  1714. 


> 


112       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

\  very  largely  directing  the  action  of  the  administration, 
yet  many  individual  acts  were  brought  about  through 
her  influence. 

\  As  has  been  said,  she  was  more  interested  in  men 
xhan  in  measures.  Her  interference  with  public  affairs, 
therefore,  most  frequently  took  the  form  of  insisting, 
not  only  upon  appointing  members  of  the  Cabinet 
iherself,  but  also  upon  making  appointments  outside  the 
Cabinet  without  consulting  her  ministers.  It  was  not 
so  much  that  she  wished  to  make  the  appointments 
as  that  she  wished  to  be  known  to  have  made  them. 
She  had  an  almost  childish  desire  that  her  ministers 
should  acknowledge  her  as  mistress.  While  her  first 
ministry  was  in  power,  she  wrote  to  Marlborough,  "I 
think  myself  obliged  to  fill  the  Bishop's  Bench  with 
those  that  will  be  a  credit  to  it  and  the  State,  and  not 
always  to  take  the  advice  of  the  29."^  Swift  tells  us 
that  during  her  last  Ministry,  "  when  a  person  happened 
to  be  recommended  to  her  as  useful  for  her  service, 
or  proper  to  be  obliged,  perhaps,  after  long  delay,  she 
would  consent ;  but  if  the  Treasurer  offered  at  the  same 
time  to  her  a  warrant  or  other  instrument  already  pre- 
pared in  order  to  be  signed,  because  he  presumed  to 
reckon  on  her  consent  beforehand,  she  would  not; 
and  thus  the  affair  would  sometimes  lie  for  several 
months   together,  although  the   thing  was  ever  so  rea- 

1  Cipher  for  Whig  Junto. 


POSITION   OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      II3 

sonable,   or   even   though   the   public    suffered    by    the 
delay."  ^ 

While  the  Queen  was  more  interested  in  making 
appointments  than  in  insisting  upon  measures,  there 
are  instances  in  which  her  influence  made  itself  felt 
in  the  latter  way.  She  herself  wrote  despatches  to 
generals  and  ministers  abroad.  When  Buys,  the  Dutch 
Pensionary,  came  over  to  argue  against  the  peace  of 
Utrecht,  he  had  a  private  audience  with  the  Queen.^ 
A  similar  interview  was  granted  to  Maffei  in  behalf 
of  Savoy.  No  foreign  envoy  would  now  be  allowed  to 
address  the  sovereign  personally  on  business  of  state. 
Hardwicke  tells  a  story  which  would  make  the  Queen 
alone  responsible  for  the  restraining  orders,  whereby  the 
Duke  of  Ormond  was  forbidden  to  fight,  pending  the 
peace.  He  says :  "  Lord  Bolingbroke  assured  a  late 
great  minister  .  .  .  that  she  herself  proposed  the  famous 
restraining  orders  to  the  Duke  of  Ormond,  which  his 
lordship  solemnly  declared  he  had  not  been  apprized 
of,  and  in  the  first  emotion  was  going  to  have  objected 
to  them ;  but  after  the  Queen  had  delivered  her  pleasure 
to  the  Lords,  she  made  a  sign  with  her  fan  at  the  mouth, 
which  Lord  Bolingbroke  knew  she  never  did  but  when 
she  was  determined  upon  a  measure.  He,  therefore, 
unhappily  for   himself  and  for  his  country,  acquiesced, 

1  Swift,  "  Last  Four  Years  of  Queen  Anne." 

2  Bolingbroke  Correspondence,  October  23,  171 1, 

I 


114      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

and  insinuated,  when  he  told  the  story,  that  the  advice 
was  supported  solely  by  his  rival.  Lord  Oxford."  ^ 

One  of  the  Carte  anecdotes  in  the  Macpherson 
Papers  would  seem  to  imply  that  the  Queen  also  took 
upon  herself  the  full  responsibiUty  for  the  proclama- 
ition  which  was  issued  in  1714  for  apprehending  the 
tretender  in  case  he  should  be  in  England.  Carte 
says :  "  Lord  M r  said  that  the  night  the  proclama- 
tion was  ordered  to  be  issued  out  against ,  he  was 

summoned  to  the  Cabinet  Council  at  K ,  and  it  being 

whispered  that  it  was  in  order  to  such  an  affair,  he, 
meeting  Lord  Oxford,  asked  him  if  it  was.  Lord  Oxford 
said  that  he  knew  nothing  about  it  —  that  he  did  not 
meddle  in  affairs  (notice  that  this  was  while  Oxford 
was  still  ostensibly  Prime  Minister),  and  that  he  would 
be  against  it,  if  proposed.  Soon  after  he  met  Lord  B. 
and  asking  him  about  it,  and  expressing  his  wonder 
that  he  should  think  of  such  a  thing,  after  it  had  been 
so  carried  in  the  House  of  Lords,  B.  denied  that 
he  knew  anything   of  it.      Afterward   they  were  called 

1  Hardwicke  State  Papers,  II.  482.  In  a  note  to  Burnet's 
History,  Hardwicke  represents  Bolingbroke  as  telling  the  story  in 
a  slightly  different  way:  that  the  orders  were  introduced  by  the 
Earl  of  Oxford,  who  had  not  previously  consulted  any  of  his  col- 
leagues on  the  subject;  that  the  Queen,  without  allowing  a  debate, 
gave  directions  that  the  orders  were  to  be  sent,  and  broke  up  the 
Council.  Bolingbroke  himself  mentions  it  in  his  "  Letters  on  the 
Study  of  History." 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      II5 

into  Council,  where  the  Queen,  giving  no  one  time  to 
speak,  said  that  she  had  resolved  on  a  proclamation 
which  she  caused  to  be  read,  and  then  without  staying 
for,  or  asking  anybody's  advice,  she  went  out;  so  that 
it  was  all  her  own  act."^ 

When,  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  George  I., 
Oxford  was  impeached  for  maladministration  during  his 
term  of  office,  he  threw  the  whole  responsibility  on  the 
Queen.  He  said,  "  My  Lords,  if  ministers  of  state,  act- 
ing by  the  immediate  command  of  their  sovereign,  are 
afterward  to  be  made  accountable  for  their  proceed- 
ings, it  may  one  day  be  the  case  of  all  the  members 
of  this  august  assembly."^ 

Yet,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Anne  was  so  anxious  to 
be  understood  to  rule  as  well  as  to  reign,  it  was  during 
her  reign  that  the  clearest  statement  of  ministerial,  as 
opposed  to  royal,  responsibility  that  had  hitherto  been 
made,  was  made  in  Parliament.  In  1711,  Rochester 
said  in  the  House  of  Lords :  "  For  some  years  past,  we 
have  been  told  that  the  Queen  is  to  answer  for  every- 
thing, but  I  hope  that  time  is  over.  According  to  the 
fundamental  constitution  of  the  kingdom,  the  ministersf 
are  accountable  for  all.  I  hope  nobody  will,  nay,  nobod)| 
durst,  name  the  Queen  in  this  connection."  ^     Rochester 

^  Macpherson  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p.  529. 

2  Stanhope,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  97. 

^  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  VI.  col.  972. 


Il6      CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

spoke  in  a  moment  of  passion,  and  as  he  was  the  leader 
of  the  High  Tories,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  he 
meant  exactly  what  he  said.  But  the  very  fact  of  his 
position  makes  his  statement  the  more  remarkable. 

fAnne  was  the  last  English  sovereign  to  make  use  of 
the  royal  veto.  It  was  used  for  the  kst  time  in  1706. 
!  There  was  no  formal  surrender  of  this  prerogative  of 
j  the  Crown.  It  simply  fell  into  disuse.^  At  the  pres- 
ent time,  for  the  sovereign  to  veto  a  bill  would  be  a 
contradiction.  For  the  Crown  has  delegated  its  author- 
ity to  its  ministers.  Wh^n  the  ministers  act,  the  Crown 
ac^,,,.  The  Crown  then,  as  represented  by  the  ministers, 
is  responsible  for  the  passing  of  the  bill,  and  cannot 
logically  veto  it. 

Turning  from  the  relations  of  the  Cabinet  to  the 
Crown,  to  its  relations  to  the  Council,  we  observe  that 
the  Cabinet  was  by  this  time  distinctly  recognized  as 
something  apart  from  the  Council,  and  it  was  taken  al- 
most as  a  matter  of  course  that  it  would  take  the  place 

1  June  26,  1774,  George  III.  wrote,  "I  hope  the  Crown  will 
always  be  able  in  either  House  of  Parliament  to  throw  out  a 
bill ;  but  I  shall  never  consent  to  use  any  expression  which  tends 
to  establish  that  at  no  time  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  dissent 
is  to  be  used."  Lord  Brougham's  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  85.  In 
1 784  Charles  James  Fox  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,  "  The 
prerogative  of  the  negative  is  a  maxim  which  I  have  always 
admitted,  always  asserted,  always  defended.  Who  doubts  it  ?  " 
"  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XXIV.  col.  367. 


POSITION   OF  THE    CABINET   UNDER   ANNE      11/ 

of  that  body.  We  have  already  noticed  the  re^ealof 
the  clause  in  the  Act  of  Settlement  which  was  intended 
to  reinstate  the  Council  in  its  former  position.  luj 
1 71 1  the  word  Cabinet  was  introduced  into  the  address 
of  the  Lords  to  the  Queen.  It  was  requested  in  thi^ 
address  that  her  Majesty  would  be  pleased  to  give  leave 
to  any  Lord  or  other  of  her  Cabinet  Council  to  com- 
municate to  the  House  any  paper  or  letter  relating  to 
the  affair  of  Spain .^ 

Still  the  word  was  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  There 
was  a  proposal  about  this  time  to  pass  a  vote  of  censure, 
and  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  the  word  Cabinet 
or  Ministers  should  be  used.  The  Earl  of  Scarsdale  said 
that  the  word  Ministers  was  better  known  than  Cabi- 
net Council.  Lord  Cowper  declared  that  "  ministers  " 
or  "  ministry  "  would  run  into  the  same  exception  with 
Cabinet  Council,  —  that  both  were  terms  of  uncertain 
meaning.  He  went  on  to  say  :  "  The  word  Ministry  is  of 
doubtful  signification,  and  the  word  Cabinet  Council  is 
unknown  in  our  law.  If  this  august  assembly  proceeds 
to  censure  men,  the  world  ought  to  know  who  they  are. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be  of  the  ministry,  and  do  not  know 
whether  I  am  to  be  involved  in  the  same  censure."  The 
witty  Earl  of  Peterborough  said  that  he  thought  the  word 
Cabinet  Council  "  not  so  proper  as  ministers.  The  Privy 
Councillors  were  such  as  were  thought  to  know  every- 
1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  VI.  col.  969. 


Il8       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

thing  and  knew  nothing.  Those  of  the  Cabinet  Council 
thought  nobody  knew  anything  but  themselves,  and  the 
same  distinction  might  in  great  measure  hold  as  to  the 
minister  and  the  Cabinet  Council ;  that  the  word  Cabi- 
net Council  was  indeed  too  copious,  for  they  disposed  of 
all.  They  fingered  the  money,  they  meddled  with  the 
war,  and  with  things  they  did  not  understand;  so  that 
sometimes  there  was  no  minister  in  the  Cabinet  Coun- 
cil." ^  "^  0 
The  summary  way  in  which  the  Privy  Council  was 
called  upon  to  ratify  the  peace  of  Utrecht  is  quite  in 
contrast  with  the  very  deHberate  session  that  agreed  to 
the  sale  of  Dunkirk.  "The  Queen  proposed  to  the 
Board  the  ratifying  of  the  Treaties  of  Peace  and  Com- 
merce, to  which  the  Earl  of  Cholmondeley  objected,  say- 
ing, "The  matter  being  of  the  highest  importance,  for 
her  Majesty  and  for  her  kingdoms,  as  well  as  for  all 
Europe,  it  required  the  maturest  consideration ;  and 
these  treaties  containing  several  terms  of  the  civil  law  in 
which  the  least  equivocation  might  be  of  great  conse- 
quence, and  being  besides  concluded  in  Latin  and 
French,  it  seemed  very  necessary  to  have  them  translated 
into  the  vulgar  tongue."  He  was  supported  by  another 
member,  ^  but  the  time  agreed  upon  for  the  exchange  of 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  VI.  cols.  970-972. 

2  Parker,  the   Lord  Chief  Justice.     Swiff  s  Journal^  April  1 7, 
1711. 


^' 


A' 

POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE     I  ig 

ratification  not  admitting  of  delays,  their  opinion  was 
overruled,  and  so  the  Queen  ratified  the  treaty.  The 
next  day,  the  white  staff,  as  Treasurer  of  the  Household, 
was  taken  from  the  Earl  of  Cholmondeley. 

We  have,  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Anne,  a  curious 
revival  of  the  old  powers  of  the  Privy  Council.  The 
news  of  the  Queen's  condition  had  been  received  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Cabinet.  The  Jacobites,  led  by  Boling- 
broke,  who  had  hoped,  had  she  lived  a  little  longer, 
to  mature  their  plans  for  bringing  in  the  Pretender, 
or  at  least  for  securing  themselves  in  power,  were  dis- 
concerted, but  not  altogether  hopeless.  Suddenly  the 
doors  were  thrown  open.  The  Whig  noblemen,  Argyle 
and  Somerset,  who  were  members  of  the  Council,  but 
not  of  the  Cabinet,  were  announced.  They  said  that, 
hearing  of  the  danger  of  the  Queen,  they  had  come  to 
offer  their  advice.  The  Jacobite  leaders  were  too 
astonished  to  make  any  reply.  Shrewsbury,  who  had 
doubtless  been  consulted  before,  rose  and  thanked  them. 
They  immediately  proposed  an  examination  of  the  physi- 
cians as  to  the  Queen's  condition.  And  they  suggested 
that  the  Duke  of  Shrewsbury  be  recommended  to  the 
Queen  for  the  position  of  Lord  Treasurer^  which  Harley 
had  recently  vacated.  The  Bolingbroke  faction  was  too 
much  taken  by  surprise  to  offer  any  opposition.  Accord- 
ingly a  deputation,  including  Shrewsbury  himself,  waited 
upon  the  Queen,  and   laid  the  proposition  before  her. 


120      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Anne,  who  had  been  roused  to  partial  consciousness, 
feebly  acquiesced.  She  delivered  the  Treasurer's  staff  to 
Shrewsbury,  and  bade  him  use  it  for  the  good  of  her 
people.  The  duke  would  have  returned  his  staff  as 
Chamberlain,  but  she  bade  him  keep  them  both.  Thus 
for  some  days  he  held  the  three  ofifices  of  Lord  Treasurer, 
Lord  Chamberlain,  and  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland. 

Somerset  and  Argyle  had  also  proposed,  at  the  morn- 
ing meeting  of  the  Cabinet,  that  a  special  summons  be 
sent  to  all  members  of  the  Privy  Council  in  and  near 
London.     This  too  had  been  accepted.     Many  of  the 
Whigs  accordingly  attended  the  Council  that  same  after- 
noon.    Among  these  was  Somers.     They  proceeded  to 
take  measures  to  insure  the  legal  order  of  succession. 
^      Thus   did  the   deliberative  functions  of  the  Council, 
which  had  been  hibernating  for  so  long  a  time,  come  to 
life  again.     There  was  nothing  illegal  about  the  proceed- 
ing, nor  is  there  any  legal  reason  why  it  should  not  hap- 
,  pen  again.     But  with  a  monarch   in  possession   of  his 
1  faculties   it   would  be   practically  impossible.      For  the 
\  Crown  possesses  the  power  of  striking  out  the  names  of 
any  of  the  privy  councillors  from  the  list.     Any  coun- 
cillor, therefore,  who  attended  a  meeting  without  being 
summoned  would  be  instantly  dismissed. 
\*'    Having    considered    the    two    external    relationships 
\       of  the   Cabinet  which  were  decreasing  in   importance, 
namely,   the    relations   with   the   Crown   and   with   the 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE     121 

Council,  let  us  consider  the  external  relationship  of  the 
Cabinet  which  was  constantly  gaining  in  importance,  '"^ 
that  is,  its  relations  with  Parliament.  As  has  been 
already  noticed,  during  this  reign  the  Commons  became  \ 
sufficiently  alive  to  the  advantages  of  having  ministers 
in  their  House  to  repeal  the  clause  in  the  Act  of  Settle- 
ment, forbidding  their  presence.  But  by  a  statute  of 
1706  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  on  taking 
office,  submit  themselves  for  reelection.^  Thus  the 
office-holder  is  approved  by  his  constituents,  not  only 
as  a  member  of  Parliament,  but  as  an  office-holder. 

Under  Anne,  the  House  of  Lords  was  still  the  more 
important  branch  of  the  legislature.  But  the  creation 
of  twelve  new  peers  in  1711,  in  order  to  bring  the  Upper 
House  into  harmony  with  the  Lower  House,  looked 
forward  to  a  time  when  this  would  no  longer  be   the 

1  We  have  seen  that  when  Anne  refused  to  make  Somers  Lord 
President,  the  Whigs  asked  that  he  be  given  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet 
without  office.  The  chief  objection  to  such  an  arrangement  in  the 
case  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  that  a  Cabinet  min- 
ister without  office  does  not  come  under  this  statute  of  1706.  The 
Queen  refused  to  comply  with  the  demand  of  the  Whigs;  but  since 
then  non-office-holders  have  been  members  of  the  Cabinet :  Hard- 
wicke  in  1757,  General  Conway  in  1770,  Lord  Camden  in  1798, 
Lord  Fitzwilliam  in  1807,  Mulgrave  in  1820,  the  Duke  of  Welling- 
ton several  times,  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  and  Lord  John  Russell 
in  1854,  Mr.  Gladstone  in  1 845- 1846.  Lord  John  Russell  did 
submit  himself  for  reelection.  He  probably  felt  under  special 
obligation  to  do  so,  in  that  he  was  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons. 


t 


122      CABINET  GOVEkNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

case.  The  expedient  has  never  since  been  resorted 
to,  but  the  Lords  understand  that  only  a  limited  amount 
of  opposition  to  the  will  of  the  Commons  is  allowed. 

During  this  period,  the  interdependence  of  ministers 
and  Parliament  became  more  a  matter  of  course,  al- 
though its  exact  nature  was  not  as  yet  defined.  Anne's 
first  Cabinet  —  a  Tory  Cabinet  —  was  appointed  while 
William's  last  Parliament  —  a  Whig  Parhament  —  was 
still  sitting.  Nor,  as  we  have  seen,  did  these  Tory 
ministers  quit  office,  nor  were  other  ministers  appointed 
as  soon  as  Parliament  demanded.  Yet  the  Whig  Junto 
used  Parliament  as  their  principal  means  of  forcing 
themselves  upon  the  Queen.  Their  every  measure  was 
introduced  with  a  view,  not  only  to  the  effect  that  it 
might  have  upon  the  Queen  as  an  individual,  but  also 
with  a  view  to  increasing  their  strength  in  Parliament, 
chiefly  by  sowing  dissension  among  their  opponents. 
Later,  when  Anne  wished  to  get  rid  of  the  Marlboroughs, 
and  consulted  Harley  upon  the  subject,  he  told  her  to 
ask  Shrewsbury  the  following  questions :  "  Would  the 
public  credit  suffer  by  a  change  of  administration? 
Could  that  measure  be  carried  into  effect  without  the 
dissolution  of  Parliament?  Would  that  dissolution  be 
attended  with  danger?"  Not  until  Shrewsbury  had 
given  favorable  replies  to  these  questions,  would  the 
Queen   make   any  change.^     When,  after  the  dismissal 

1  Coxe,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  I.  p.  29. 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      1 23 

of  the  Marlborough  set,  Harley  discovered  that,  because 
of  the  unwillingness  of  the  Whigs  to  take  office,  he  could 
not  form  a  mixed  ministry,  he  dissolved  the  Whig  Par- 
hament.  When  there  was  a  Tory  House  of  Commons, 
a  Tory  ministry  was  appointed. 

Still,  the  necessity  for  a  change  of  ministers  with  a 
change  of  sentiment  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  not 
clearly  recognized  as  yet.  Greatly  to  Swift's  disgust, 
this  same  Harley  ministry  held  office  for  some  time 
after  it  had  ceased  to  receive  Parliamentary  support. 
And,  in  1713,  Bolingbroke  wrote  that  he  had  feared 
that  the  new  House  of  Commons  would  be  antagonistic 
to  the  government,  which  the  Queen  was  bound  to 
support. 

In  a  general  way  it  was  beginning  to  be  acknowledged 
that  the  members  of  the  Cabinet,  being  appointed  in 
great  measure  by  Parliament,  should,  after  their  appoint- 
ment, be  the  leaders  of  that  body.  Yet  they  often  failed 
to  take  this  position.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  the  Occa- 
sional Conformity  Bill  in  1703,  the  ministers  did  not 
lead,  but  were  led.  It  was  introduced  in  the  first  place 
by  three  private  members.  One  of  these,  it  is  interest- 
ing to  notice,  was  Henry  St.  John.  Under  a  feehng  of 
compulsion  the  ministers  gave  it  their  support,  but  the 
House  of  Lords  amended  it  to  such  an  extent  that, 
as  the  Commons  were  not  willing  to  consent  to  these 
amendments,   it   was   allowed   to   drop.      It  was   again 


124       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

brought  forward,  much  against  the  wishes  of  Marl- 
borough and  Godolphin,  who  induced  the  Queen  to 
express  in  her  speech  the  hope  that  all  her  subjects 
might  live  in  peace  and  unity  among  themselves.  As 
it  was  nevertheless  brought  forward,  the  ministers  again 
felt  obliged  to  support  it.  But  as  they  were  beginning 
to  feel  that  they  might  soon  have  to  rely  upon  Whig 
votes,  they  did  this  even  less  heartily  than  before,  and 
Godolphin  said  that,  though  right,  it  was  unseasonable. 

Again,  in  February,  1 708,  the  bill  to  render  the  union 
with  Scotland  more  complete  was  before  ParHam'ent. 
It  was  a  ministerial  measure.  Yet  Marlborough  and 
Godolphin  voted  for  an  amendment  to  their  own  bill, 
^nd,  when  it  was  finally  passed,  signed  a  protest  to  the 
yvhole  measure  ! 

In  1 714,  when  the  Schism  Act  was  being  considered, 
we  find  Lord  Oxford,  the  leader  of  the  administration, 
taking  a  similar  irresolute  and  undignified  position.  In 
the  Cabinet  he  said  that  it  was  too  severe,  and  pro- 
posed to  soften  it  to  some  extent.  Not  being  able  to 
bring  his  colleagues  to  his  way  of  thinking,  he  said  in 
the  House  of  Lords  that  he  had  not  yet  considered  it. 
His  next  move  was  to  induce  the  Opposition  to  allow 
the  second  reading  to  pass  without  dividing.  When 
the  final  vote  was  taken,  he  absented  himself  from  the 
House. 

It  will  be  observed  that  when  ministers  took  a  weak 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER   ANNE      1 25 

position  in  Parliament,  it  was  due  either  to  the  fact! 
that  they  were  doubtful  as  to  their  ability  to  command! 
a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  or  to  the  fact } 
that  they  were  divided  against  themselves. 

The  Parliamentary  method  of  holding  ministers  re- 
sponsible was  still  impeachment.  Yet  it  was  evident 
that  the  day  of  political  impeachments  was  passing 
away.  Men  were  beginning  to  estimate  them  at  their 
true  worth  or  worthlessness.  Sir  Roland  Gwyne  wrote  ' 
to  the  Elector  of  Hanover,  January  9,  1 709  :  "  Your  • 
Electoral  Highness  sees  my  Lord  Somers  being  made 
President  of  the  Queen's  Council.  Although  impeached 
by  Parliament  he  can  be,  and  is,  employed  in  places  of 
the  highest  trust.  I  could  give  you  many  instances 
of  the  same  nature."^  The  most  prominent  men  in 
the  nation  visited  Walpole  in  the  Tower,  and  his  im- 
peachment never  counted  against  him,  either  as  a 
gentleman  or  as  a  statesman. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  Cabinet  itself,  apart 
from  its  external  relations,  we  find  that  so  many  terms 
are  used  during  this  reign  to  designate  the  advisers  of 
the  Crown  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  decide  what  each 
one  signified.  We  find  mention  of  the  Cabinet,  the 
Lords  of  the  Committee,  the  Committee  of  Council,  the 
Lords  of  the  Cabinet  Council,  and  the  Great  Council. 
The  Cabinet  may  be  taken  to  mean  the  group  of  privy 

1  Macpherson  Papers,  Vol.  II.  p.  137. 


~f 


126       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

councillors  with  whom  the  Queen  consulted  on  affairs 
of  state.  The  Lords  of  Committee,  Committee  of  Coun- 
cil, and  Lords  of  the  Council  were  perhaps  general  terms 
used  to  denote  any  standing  committees,  but,  strictly 
speaking,  they  meant  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs 
to  which  during  this  reign,  and  it  would  seem  during 
this  reign  only,  foreign  affairs  were  generally  submitted 
before  they  were  brought  before  the  Cabinet.^  The 
Great  Council  was  the  Privy  Council,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  no  longer  assembled  except  for  the  transaction  of 
formal  business.  These  are  in  general  the  significations 
of  these  terms,  but  they  are  not  always  to  be  rehed 
upon.  Thus  Swift  calls  the  committee  which  met  to 
examine  Guiscard,  a  "  committee  of  the  Cabinet  Coun- 
cil." Bolingbroke  says  the  "Lords  of  the  Council." 
Modern  writers  usually  speak  of  it  as  the  Cabinet. 

Under  Anne  there  was  a  somewhat  further  develop- 
ment of  the  office  of  Prime  Minister,  owing  no  doubt 
partly  to  the  fact  that  the  Queen  was  not  so  well  able 
to  lead  the  Cabinet  deliberations  herself  as  William  had 
been.  Throughout  the  first  two  administrations  of  the 
reign,    Godolphin   was   generally   acknowledged    to    be 

1  We  find  Bolingbroke  writing  to  the  Queen,  September  24, 
1 71 3,  on  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  Commerce  with  Spain,  "The 
draft  will  be  ready  for  the  Lords  of  the  Council  to-morrow,  and 
for  the  Cabinet  on  Sunday,  when  I  humbly  presume  that  you  will 
have  the  Cabinet  sit  as  usual." 


POSITION   OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      12/ 

the  first  minister  at  home  (Marlborough  being  abroad) ,\/ 
and  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time  that  he  was  in 
office  he  was  able  to  acquit  himself  as  such.  But  after 
the  final  rupture  between  the  Queen  and  the  Duchess 
of  Marlborough,  the  Queen  utterly  disregarded  Godol- 
phin,  though  retaining  him  as  nominal  first  minister. 
The  feehng  was  developing,  that  the  first  minister,  if 
he  was  not  to  appoint  his  colleagues,  was  at  least  to 
be  consulted  as  to  their  appointment.  So  when  Anne 
appointed  Shrewsbury,  who  was  playing  Tory  just  then. 
Lord  Chamberlain  without  consulting  any  one,  Godol- 
phin  wrote  her  a  reproachful  letter.  Yet  he  declared 
himself  willing  to  submit  unconditionally  to  the  royal 
will.  "  For  my  own  part,"  he  said,  "  I  must  humbly 
beg  leave  to  assure  your  Majesty  that  I  will  never  give 
the  least  obstruction  to  your  measures."  A  little  lateij 
in  the  history  of  Cabinet  development,  a  minister  would! 
have  felt  compelled  to  resign  if  he  had  received  such 
treatment.  That  some  progress  was  being  made  \i 
shown  by  the  fact  that  even  at  that  time  Godolphin 
was  much  blamed  for  submitting  to  such  indignity.  "  If  i 
Lord  Treasurer  can  but  be  persuaded  to  act  like  a  man," 
wrote  Sunderland,  while  the  Tories  said  derisively  that 
the  enemies  of  passive  obedience  had  become  passive 
themselves. 

Swift  often  speaks  of  Harley  as  Prime  Minister,  and 
once  speaks  of  "those  who   are  now  commonly  called 


128       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Prime  Ministers  among  us."  There  was  more  disposi- 
tion to  hold  Harley  accountable  for  appointments,  or 
for  failure  to  make  appointments,  than  there  had  been 
with  previous  ministers.  Swift  says  that  he  often  allowed 
himself  to  be  misunderstood,  taking  blame  upon  himself 
which  should  have  attached  to  the  Queen,  he  having 
been  powerless  to  help  matters,  because  of  her  interfer- 
ence. He  did  this,  Swift  explains,  "  because  it  is  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  government  that  a  first  minister 
should  preserve  the  appearance  of  power."  ^  Yet  it  is 
probable  that  his  colleagues  never  held  themselves 
strictly  accountable  to  him  for  transactions  in  their  de- 
partments. And  during  the  last  six  months  of  his  admin- 
istration, he  would  enter  into  no  business  but  what 
immediately  concerned  his  office. 
,  \     ^.    Cabinet  meetings  were  regular  and  frequent  during  the 

f  reign  of  Anne.  They  were  held  always  on  SClnday,  and 
<>owper*s  diary  speaks  of  many  extra  meetings.  But 
inasmuch  as  there  was  considerable  doubt  as  to  who  con- 
stituted the  Cabinet,  there  was  of  course  a  doubt  as  to 
who  had  a  right  to  be  summoned  to  these  meetings. 
The  Queen  seems  to  have  thought  that  she  could  occa- 
ionally  invite  any  one  whom  she  pleased.  Swift  gives 
us  a  curious  instance  of  this.  He  writes  to  Archbishop 
King,  August  26,  1711  :  "The  Duke  of  Somerset  usually 
leaves  Windsor  on  Saturday,  when  the  ministers  go  down 

1  Swift,  "  Last  Four  Years  of  Queen  Anne." 


POSITION  OF   THE   CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      1 29 

thither,  and  returns  not  till  they  are  gone.  On  Saturday 
sevennight,  contrary  to  custom,  he  was  at  Windsor,  and  a 
Cabinet  council  was  to  be  held  at  night,  but  after  wait- 
ing a  long  time,  word  was  brought  out  that  there  could  be 
no  Cabinet.  Next  day  it  was  held,  and  the  duke  went 
to  a  horse-race  three  miles  off.  Mr.  St.  John  refused  to 
sit,  if  the  duke  were  there.  Last  Sunday  the  duke  was 
there  again,  but  did  not  offer  to  come  to  the  Cabinet, 
which  was  held  without  him."  ^ 

As  in  previous  reigns,  it  was  not  the  invariable  custom 
to  discuss  all  public  affairs  in  full  Cabinet  meetings.  We 
have  already  noticed,  in  considering  the  relations  of  the 
Cabinet  to  the  Crown,  that  the  Queen  took  the  responsi- 
bility of  some  actions  upon  herself,  almost,  if  not  quite, 
without  consultation  with  her  ministers.  Moreover,  she 
sometimes  consulted  some  and  not  others.  Further  than 
that,  particular  ministers  used  their  own  discretion  as  to 
whether  matters  relating  to  their  departments  should  be 
brought  before  the  Cabinet  or  not.  Thus  BoHngbroke 
writes  (January  19,  171 1)  that  he  is  sorry  that  certain 
secrets  have  got  abroad,  for  they  have  not  yet  been  com- 
municated to  the  Cabinet.     Again  (April  17,  171 1)  he 

1  Swift's  Letters,  August  26,  171 1.  The  Duke  of  Somerset  was 
Master  of  the  Horse  —  a  man  of  no  special  ability.  Anne,  because 
of  her  fondness  for  his  wife,  had  insisted  upon  his  retaining  his 
place  after  the  other  Whigs  were  turned  out.  He  told  Cowper 
that  he  would  not  attend  the  Privy  Council. 
K 


V 


I30      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

says  that  the  Lord  President,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  and 
Mr.  Harley  are  the  only  ones  in  the  secret  of  the  over- 
tures made  by  the  Duke  of  Lorraine.  Again  (May  8, 
1 711)  he  requests  that  Lord  Raby  write  in  a  separate 
letter  "  such  things  as  are  not  of  a  nature  to  be  communi- 
cated even  to  the  Cabinet  until  her  Majesty  should  think 
fit."^  When  Harley  left  the  Marlborough-Godolphin 
Cabinet,  he  wrote  to  Marlborough,  "I  have  not  inter- 
posed in,  or  contradicted,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  put- 
ting in  or  putting  out  any  person,  or  meddled  with  any 
measures  that  are  taken ;  for  I  have  avoided  knowing 
them:'  Again,  during  the  last  ministry  of  the  reign,  we 
find  the  Lord  Chancellor  Harcourt  complaining  "  in  very 
feeling  terms  "  that  he  knew  no  more  of  the  measures  of 
the  Court  than  his  footman.  Lord  Bolingbroke  had 
not  made  him  a  visit  for  a  year,  and  Lord  Oxford  did 
not  so  much  as  know  him. 

Harley's  famous  Saturday  dinners  —  those  dinners 
at  which  wit  and  wisdom  so  abounded  —  were  made 
a  means,  not  only  of  excluding  the  Queen  from 
Cabinet  deliberations,  but  they  also  furnished  oppor- 
tunity for  the  exclusion  of  certain  ministers.  These 
dinners  were  probably  held  at  times  when  the  occasion 
seemed  to  require  it,  before  they  were  ma^  a  regular 
occurrence.  Cowper  tells  us  of  a  Cabinet  dinner  given 
by  Harley  in  1707  as  a  token  of  the  reconciliation  of 
J  1  Bolingbroke  Correspondence  for  above  dates. 


POSITION   OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE     131 

Somers  and  Halifax  with  himself.  "  I  dined,"  he  says, 
"  next  day  on  invitation  with  Secretary  Harley.  Present, 
Duke  of  Marlborough,  Lord  Treasurer,  Mr.  Boyle,  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer,  Mr.  St.  John,  Lord  Sunderland. 
Lord  Somers,  I  understood,  had  been  invited,  but  did 
not  come,  being  at  his  country  house,  but  Secretary 
Harley  said  he  had  sent  him  a  kind  letter  to  excuse  his 
absence.  I  believed  when  I  see  the  company  this  to  be 
a  meeting  to  reconcile  Somers  and  Halifax  with  Harley, 
which  was  confirmed  to  me  when,  after  Lord  Treasurer 
was  gone,  who  first  went,  Secretary  Harley  took  a  glass 
and  drank  to  love  and  friendship,  and  everlasting  union, 
and  wished  he  had  more  Tokay  to  drink  it  in.  We  had 
drank  two  bottles,  good  but  thick.  I  replied  that  his  White 
Lisbon  was  best  to  drink  it  in,  being  very  clear.  I  sup- 
pose he  apprehended  it,  as  most  of  the  company  did,  to 
relate  to  that  humor  of  his,  which  was  never  to  deal 
clearly  and  openly,  but  always  with  reserve,  if  not  dis- 
simulation, or  rather  simulation ;  and  to  love  tricks,  even 
where  not  necessary,  but  from  an  inward  satisfaction  he 
took  in  applauding  his  own  cunning.  If  any  man  was 
ever  born  under  the  necessity  of  being  a  knave,  he 
was."  1 

Swift's  letters  and  journal  abound  in  allusions  to  the 
regular  dinner  of  the  Harley  administration.     This  din- 
ner was  not  strictly  confined  to  members  of  the  Cabi- 
1  Cowper's  Diary,  January  6,  1707. 


132       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

net,  since  Swift  himself  gained  admittance,  and  must 
have  been  one  of  the  most  valued  guests.  At  first 
he  says  the  company  consisted  only  of  the  Lord  Keeper 
Harcourt,  Earl  Rivers,  the  Earl  of  Peterborough,  Mr. 
Secretary  St.  John,  Swift  himself,  and  of  course  the 
host,  Harley.^  After  dinner  they  used  to  talk,  and  settle 
matters  of  great  importance.  Owing  to  the  fact  that 
Harley  undertook  to  give  his  guests  an  account  of  his 
administration,  and  to  receive  their  criticisms,  he  merrily 
called  Saturday,  the  day  of  the  meeting,  whipping-day. 
In  time  others  were  brought  into  these  consultations. 
As  the  meetings  grew  in  numbers,  they  decreased  in 
interest  and  importance.  Swift  says  that  after  the  in- 
troduction of  all  that  rabble  he  frequently  stayed  at 
home. 

Finally  we  notice  that  we  have,  during  almost  the 
whole  of  this  period,  hybrid  administrations.  While 
the  officials  first  appointed  by  Anne  were  all  Tories,  as 
has  been  mentioned  before,  some  Whigs  already  in 
office  were  not  turned  out,  and  the  new  appointees 
were  of  very  varying  shades  of  Toryism.  Marlborough 
and  Godolphin  decided  that  it  was  more  difficult  to 
get  on  with  their  high  Tory  colleagues  than  with  the 
other  party.  Their  letters,  during  the  first  few  years  of 
their  administration,  abound  in  allusions  to  dissensions 
in  the  Cabinet. 

1  Swift,  "  Works,"  Vol.  XV.  p.  27,  ed.  1765. 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE     1 33 

During  the  period  of  the  ascendency  of  the  Whig 
Junto,  we  have,  it  is  true,  such  ministerial  unanimity  as 
had  not  been  known  since  1698.  But  although,  as  we, 
have  seen,  the  Junto  had  influenced  the  administration 
very  largely  for  some  time  before  they  actually  came 
into  office,  they  were  in  full  power  barely  two  years, 
from  1708  to  1 710. 

The  last  ministry  of  Anne  was  again  a  full  Tory 
ministry,  but  it  was  not  distinguished  for  its  unanimity. 
Indeed,  there  could  hardly  have  been  two  men  more 
opposed  to  each  other  than  were  its  leaders,  Oxford 
and  Bohngbroke.  Oxford  had  been  a  Whig,  and  some 
of  his  colleagues  thought  that  he  had  not  yet  recovered 
from  that  complaint.  He  was  a  strong  Hanoverian,  and 
was  suspected  of  too  great  fondness  for  the  Dissenters. 
Bolingbroke,  on  the  other  hand,  was  making  it  the 
object  of  his  Hfe  to  consolidate  the  Tory  party.  In 
order  to  do  this,  he  was  strengthening  the  Church,  and 
even  plotting,  with  how  much  sincerity  cannot  now  be 
determined,  to  bring  in  the  Pretender.  In  addition  to 
political  differences,  personal  jealousies  soon  arose.  The 
Cabinet  split  into  two  factions,  the  one  following  Oxford, 
the  other  following  Bolingbroke.  Swift  tells  us  that  the 
last  six  months  that  Oxford  was  in  power  were  "  noth- 
ing else  but  a  scene  of  murmuring  and  discontent, 
quarrel  and  misunderstanding,  animosity  and  hatred."  ^ 
1  Swift,  "  Last  Four  Years  of  Queen  Anne." 


"N 


134       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

There  were  not  four  days,  he  says,  of  any  kind  of 
concert.^ 

So  long  as  the  changes  in  the  Cabinet  were  gradual, 
there  were  of  necessity  divided  administrations.  And 
it  took  four  years  to  transform  the  Tory  Marlborough- 
Godolphin  ministry  into  the  Whig  Marlborough-Godol- 
phin  ministry.  It  took  four  months  to  transform  this 
latter  administration  into  the  Tory  administration  of 
Oxford  and  Bohngbroke.  In  this  latter  case  the  rapid- 
ity with  which  changes  were  made  was  looked  upon  with 
great  astonishment.  Burnet  says  that  such  haste  was 
unprecedented. 

But  further,  the  Cabinets  of  Anne  were  divided  against 
themselves,  not  by  accident,  but  on  principle.  The  Queen 
saw  very  clearly  that  party  government  meant  the  sur- 
render of  the  royal  personaUty.  As  we  have  seen,  both 
her  inclinations  and  her  principles  were  opposed  to  this. 
She  appointed  her  first  ministry  with  reference  to  having 
a  certain  difference  of  opinion  among  her  ministers. 
When,  in  1706,  Godolphin  was  urging  her  to  bring  the 
Whigs  into  office,  she  wrote  to  him  :  "  Why  should  I, 
who  have  no  end,  no  interest,  no  thought,  but  the  good 
of  my  country,  be  made  so  miserable  as  to  be  brought 
into  the  power  of  one  set  of  men?  .  .  .  Throwing  my- 
self in  the  hands   of  a  party  is  a  thing  I  have  always 

1  Swift,  letter  to  Peterborough,  May  18,  1714,  "Works,"  Vol. 
XVI.  p.  132. 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      1 35 

been  desirous  to  avoid.  Maybe  some  would  think  I 
would  be  willing  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Tories,  but 
whatever  people  may  say  of  me,  I  do  assure  you,  I  am 
not  inclined,  nor  ever  will  be,  to  employ  any  of  those 
violent  persons  who  have  behaved  so  ill  to  me.  All  I 
desire  is  my  liberty  in  encouraging  and  employing  all 
those  who  concur  faithfully  in  my  service,  whether  they 
are  called  Whigs  or  Tories ;  not  to  be  tied  either  to 
one  or  the  other.  For  if  I  should  be  one  so  unfortu- 
nate as  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  either,  I  shall  not 
imagine  myself,  though  I  have  the  name  of  Queen,  to 
be  in  reality  anything  but  their  slave,  to  my  personal 
ruin  and  the  destruction  of  all  government."  ^ 

In  1 710  she  was  scarcely  more  desirous  of  putting 
herself  into  the  hands  of  the  Tories,  than  she  had  been 
in  1706  of  putting  herself  into  the  hands  of  the  Whigs. 
It  was  only  when  she  could  not  find  Whigs  to  serve  as 
the  colleagues  of  Harley  that  she  turned  completely  to 
the  Tories. 

Nor  was  the  Queen  the  only  person  who  objected  to 
putting  all  power  into  the  hands  of  a  party.  Marl- 
borough and  Godolphin  never  quite  gave  up  the  theory 
of  a  coalition  government.  Three  of  the  more  promi- 
nent Whigs,  Somerset,  Argyle,  and  Shrewsbury,  were 
always  opposed  to  party  government.  Their  influence 
contributed  to  the  fall  of  the  Whigs  in  1710.  And  we 
1  Quoted  by  Harrop,  "  Life  of  Bolingbroke,"  p.  38. 


136       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

have  noticed  the  sudden  bold  stroke  by  which,  at  the 
close  of  Anne's  reign,  they  practically  ruined  the  Tory 
'  jparty  for  the  time  being.  As  for  Harley,  he  desired  to 
testore  the  old  authority  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  was 
strongly  opposed  to  the  whole  Cabinet  system.  If  there 
was  to  be  a  Cabinet  at  all,  he  wished  it  to  be  the  Parlia- 
ment in  miniature.  Whenever  a  government  tended  to 
become  altogether  a  party  government,  we  find  him  in- 
triguing against  it,  even  though  he  might  himself  be  a 
member  of  it.  In  1 704  it  was  largely  through  him  that 
the  high  Tories,  Nottingham  and  Rochester,  left  the 
Cabinet.  In  1707  he  did  his  best  to  turn  out  Godol- 
phin  and  the  Whigs.  In  17 10  he  made  vain  attempts 
to  form  a  comprehensive  administration.  In  17 13  and 
1 714  he  was  in  opposition  to  the  great  body  of  his  own 
followers. 

But  divided  cabinets  are  possible  only  where  there  are 
divided  parties.  And  in  the  parties  there  was  more  and 
more  tendency  to  consolidation.  When  Marlborough 
fell,  in  1 710,  the  Whigs  held  two  meetings  to  decide 
whether  they  could  hold  office  in  a  divided  administra- 
tion. They  decided  that  they  could  not.  So  when 
Somers,  Halifax,  Cowper,  and  Walpole  were  pressed  to 
retain  their  positions,  they  refused.  Cowper  tells  us  that 
he  "  made  suitable  expressions  to  acknowledge  so  great 
a  favor,  but  in  substance  said  that  things  were  too  far 
gone  toward  the  Tories  for  him  to  think  it  prudent  to 


POSITION  OF   THE    CABINET   UNDER  ANNE      1 37 

retain  his  place  if  he  might."  ^  When  Harley  found  that 
the  bulk  of  his  administration  must  be  Tory,  he  even  felt 
obliged  to  turn  out  the  few  Whigs  who  were  willing  to 
serve. 

And  it  was  not  only  the  Whig  party  that  was  develop- 
ing a  compact  organization.  The  Tories,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Bolingbroke,  were  following  in  their  footsteps. 

To  sum  up,  we  cannot  say  that  any  very  distinct  step 
in  advance  was  made   during  this  reign.     Yet   Cabinet 
government  was  in  a  much  more  developed  state  at  the 
death  of  Anne  than  at  the  death  of  William.     The  ad- 
vance was  chiefly  due  to  the  fact  that  both  Parliament 
and  the  Crown  were  becoming  used  to  the  new  order  of 
things.     Parliament,  for  the  most  part,  ceased  to  com- 
plain against  it,  and  the  Crown  ceased  to  exert  the  con- 
trolling influence  of  earlier  days.     The  increased  power 
of  ParHament,  and   especially  of  the   House   of  Com- 
mons, made  it  more  and  more  necessary  that  the  minis- 
ter should  serve  the  legislature  rather  than  the  sovereign. 
The  elevation  of  Parliament  meant  the  elevation  of  the 
ministers,   who   were   becoming   at   the   same   time   its 
masters  and  its  servants.     Permitted  more  and  more  to  \ 
manage  its  own  affairs,  the  Cabinet  began  to  realize,  as   | 
never  before,  that  internal   organization  was  necessary.   ; 
Hence  there  was  a  certain  striving  after  political  unanim-  i  \ 
ity,  and  the  office  of  Prime  Minister  began  to  emerge.      / 
1  Cowper's  Diary,  September  22,  17 10. 


CHAPTER  VI 

INFLUENCE   OF  THE   CROWN   UNDER   THE   FIRST  TWO 
GEORGES 

Decline  in  royal  influence  due  to  tenure  by  which  the  House  of 
Hanover  held  the  throne  —  Loss  of  royal  state  —  Character  of 
the  kings — Their  dislike  for  England  —  Ignorance  of  state 
affairs — Exclusive  employment  of  the  Whigs — Extinction  of 
high  prerogative  sentiment  among  the  Tories  —  The  ministry  of 
Townshend  —  Changes  in  1716-1717,  due  entirely  to  royal  will  — 
The  administration  of  Walpole  —  A  Prime  Minister  whorn  the 
King  gave  to  the  people  —  Yet  he  depended  upon  Parliamentary 
support  —  George  II.  is  obliged  to  retain  Walpol^ — Walpole 
exerts  himself  to  gain  the  royal  favor  —  Walpole '  loses  his 
majority  and  resigns  —  Distinct  era  in  decline  of  royal  power  — 
The  King  is  unable  to  appoint  his  successors  —  Divisions  in  the 
new  Cabinet  —  Henry  Pelham  appointed  First "  Lord  of  the 
Treasury  —  Granville  dismissed  —  The  Broad-Bottom  administra- 
tion—  Resignation  of  the  Pelhams — Parliament  refuses  to  sup- 
port Granville — The  Pelhams  reinstated  —  Newcastle  succeeds 
Pelham  —  Walpole's  attempt  to  form  an  administration  —  Ad- 
ministration of  Pitt  —  Influence  of  the  Crown  on  measures  — 
The  King  ceases  to  attend  Cabinet  meetings  —  The  King  no 
longer  held  responsible  for  measures  —  The  King's  speech  — 
Feeling  of  security  against  abuse  of  royal  power. 

Appendix  A.  — The  King's  presence  at  Cabinet  meetings. 

Appendix  B.  —  Conversation  between  George  II.  and  Hardwicke. 

138 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE    CROWN  1 39 

IT  was  under  the  first  two  Georges  that  Cabinet  govern- 
ment took  definite  form.  It  will  be  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  follow  the  development  during  these  reigns  a 
Httle  more  closely  than  we  have  hitherto  done. 

Throughout  our  study  we  have  noticed  that  the  great 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  further  progress  was  the  personal 
influence  of  the  sovereign.  With  the  accession  of  the 
House  of  Hanover,  many  circumstances  combined  to  de- 
crease this.  The  very  nature  of  the  tenure  by  which  the 
new  kings  held  the  throne  was  calculated  to  dispel  that 
reverent  affection  and  that  glowing  enthusiasm  which 
had  so  often  insured  the  sovereign  such  unquestioning 
obedience.  Reason  repudiates  the  idea  that  heredity  is 
a  better  title  than  the  free  choice  of  the  people.  The 
imagination  even  of  the  most  reasoning  and  cultured 
classes  clings  to  it.  It  is  impossible  to  surround  the 
elective  monarch  with  that  halo  of  poetry  and  romance, 
of  which  ncf  bad  government  and  no  personal  unworthi- 
ness  can  wholly  divest  him  whom  the  people  beUeve  to 
have  been  raised  up  by  God  to  be  their  king.^ 

1  It  is  indeed  true,  as  Professor  Freeman  points  out  in  his 
"Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,"  that  the  Crown  of  England 
had  always  been  elective;  that  no  one  could  legally  be  King  of 
England  except  by  Parliamentary  title,  and  that  every  sovereign 
except  James  I.  has  had  this  title.  It  was  partly  because  James  I. 
was  a  usurper  with  no  legal  title  that  he  developed  the  doctrine  of 
the  Divine  Right  of  Kings.  It  was  only  by  the  Act  of  Settlement 
which  placed  the  Crown  on  the  head  of  England's  last  elective 


I40       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Yet,  although  the  elective  king  does  not  command 
reverence  such  as  is  inspired  by  the  hereditary  king,  he 
may  arouse  enthusiasm  of  another  nature,  not  so  senti- 
mental and  poetic,  but  perhaps  higher,  nobler,  and  more 
manly,  because  more  reasonable.  He  is  the  man  of  all 
others  whom  the  people  believe  fitted  to  lead  their 
armies  in  war,  and  to  guide  their  councils  in  peace.  He 
is  the  man  whose  abilities  they  admire,  whose  personal 
character  they  approve,  and  to  whom  they  are  often 
bound  by  ties  of  the  warmest  affection.  He  is  the  high- 
est product  of  their  civilization.  They  have  made  him. 
It  is  not  only  that  their  votes  have  made  him  king. 
Their  civilization  has  made  him  fit  to  be  king.  And  he 
is  one  of  them.  He  has  grown  up  among  them.  He 
knows  not  only  their  institutions,  but  their  temperament. 
He  not  only  knows,  but  he  shares,  their  desires  and 
aspirations.  Such  a  Icing  may  even  have  more  actual 
power  than  the  hereditary  king.  For  the  hereditary 
king  may  be  too  great  and  awful  for  practical  purposes. 
But  the  elective  king  has  been  chosen  that  he  may  exer- 
cise those  practical  abilities  of  which  he  is  known  to  be 
possessed. 

The  position  of  the  Hanoverians  was  such  that  they 

king  that  the  monarchy  became  legally  hereditary.  Yet  the  prac- 
tice of  always  electing  some  one  who  stood  in  the  position  of  heir 
to  his  predecessor,  or  as  near  that  position  as  under  the  circum- 
stances seemed  feasible,  had  obscured  the  real  elective  character  of 
the  monarchy. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  141 

were  no  better  fitted  to  arouse  enthusiasm  as  elective 
kings  than  they  were  to  inspire  reverence  as  hereditary 
kings.  They  had  indeed  been  chosen  to  be  kings  of 
England,  but  not  by  the  people  of  England.  The  Act  of 
Settlement  was  passed  by  a  parliament  of  William  III., 
which,  Hke  all  other  parliaments  of  the  time,  represented 
but  a  small  minority  of  the  English  people.  It  was 
passed  by  men  who,  at  the  time,  were  swayed  by  strong 
indignation,  aroused  by  an  insult  which  the  French  King 
had  put  upon  the  EngHsh  nation.^  Had  it  been  pre- 
sented to  the  House  of  Commons  either  a  few  months 
earlier  or  a  few  months  later  than  it  was,  it  is  more  than 
possible  that  it  would  have  been  rejected.  All  through 
the  reign  of  Anne  it  was  losing  favor.  The  Queen  her- 
self was  believed  to  be  opposed  to  it.  So  were  almost 
all  the  members  of  her  last  Cabinet.  Had  it  been  put  to 
popular  vote  at  any  time  during  the  reign,  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  people  would  have  rejected  it.  That 
its  provisions  were  carried  out  was  due  wholly  to  the  fact 
that,  in  the  consternation  attendant  upon  the  Queen's 
unexpected  death,  its  enemies,  whose  plans  were  not 
quite  matured,  lost  their  heads,  and  its  friends  were  thus 
enabled  to  gain  control.  Of  the  men  who  were  promi- 
nent in  placing  the  House  of  Hanover  on  the  throne,  and 
maintaining  it  there,  some  were  actuated  almost  wholly 

1  The  acknowledgment  of  the   son  of  James   II.  as  King  of 
England. 


142       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

by  personal  ambition.     Others   regarded  the  change  in 
dynasty  as  in  itself  a  great  evil,  but  the  only  salvation 
from  still  greater  evils.     Not  one  felt  any  personal  en- 
thusiasm  for   the   new  kings.      The  first   two   Georges 
j     knew  that  more  than  half  the  English  people  would  be 
glad  to  have  them  leave  the  country  forever,  and  that 
any  misgovernment  on  their  part  would  so  rouse  their 
subjects  that  they  would  be  eager  to  take  active  measures 
to  secure  their  departure.     Understanding  that  they  held 
>y^  [     \    the  throne  only  on  sufferance,  they  were  the  more  willing 
^i    j   to  hand  over  the  power,  with  the  responsibility  for  its 
/    use,  to  their  English  ministers.^     "As  for  your  rascals 
in  the  House  of  Commons,"  George  I.  said  to  Walpole, 
,    \        "manage  them  as  you  please.     I  don't  interfere  with 
^^\     them." 

V  Nor  was  the  loss  of  royal  prestige  due  only  to   the 

circumstances  attendant  upon  the  accession  of  the  House 

1  Count  Broglio  writes  to  the  King  of  France,  July  20,  1724: 
"  He  [George  I.]  rather  considers  England  as  a  temporary  posses- 
sion to  be  made  the  most  of  it  while  it  lasts,  than  as  a  perpetual 
inheritance  to  himself  and  family.  He  will  have  no  disputes  with 
the  Parliament,  but  commits  the  entire  transaction  of  that  business 
to  Walpole,  choosing  rather  that  the  responsibility  should  fall  on 
the  minister's  head  than  on  his  own,  and  being  well  apprized  that 
a  king  of  Great  Britain  is  obliged,  when  the  Parliament  requires  it, 
to  give  an  account  of  his  conduct,  as  well  with  respect  to  the  lib- 
erty of  the  subject,  as  to  the  execution  and  formation  of  laws.  I 
have  even  been  assured  that  the  King  has  expressed  himself  to  this 
effect."  —  CoXE,  "Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  303. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE   CROWN  1 43 

of  Hanover.  The  characters  of  their  foreign  rulers  did 
much  to  break  the  spell  which  royalty  had  hitherto  cast 
over  the  English  people.  To  begin  with,  the  elaborate 
etiquette  of  English  court  life  was  disagreeable  to  the 
first  two  Georges.  They  therefore  aboUshed  it,  substi- 
tuting for  it  the  simple  manners  and  customs  of  a  little 
German  court.^  To  the  English  the  pomp  and  pag- 
eantry of  royalty  had  been  the  outward  symbol  of  an 
inward  greatness.  They  therefore  saw  in  this  sim- 
plicity of  life  a  tacit  acknowledgment  on  the  part 
of  the  new  family  that  they  had  no  claim  to  the 
reverence  which  had  been  felt  for  the  sovereigns  of 
England. 

As  the  kings  were  no  longer  surrounded  by  the  awful 
and  the  mysterious,  their  lives  and  characters  might  be 
known  and  criticised  as  the  lives  and  characters  of  other 

1  "  No  prince  in  the  world  lives  in  the  state  and  grandeur  of  the 
King  and  Queen  of  England.  .  .  .  Yet,  in  my  own  private  opinion, 
it  savors  too  much  of  superstition,  being  a  respect  that  religion 
allows  to  the  King  of  kings.  King  George,  since  his  accession  to 
the  throne,  hath  entirely  altered  this  superstitious  way  of  being 
served  on  the  knee  at  table.  King  Charles  II.,  King  James,  King 
William,  and  Queen  Anne,  whenever  they  dined  in  public,  received 
wine  upon  the  knee  from  a  man  of  the  first  quality,  who  was  a 
Lord  of  the  Bedchamber  in  waiting.  But  King  George  hath  en- 
tirely altered  that  method.  He  dines  at  St.  James's  privately, 
served  by  his  domestics,  and  often  sups  abroad  with  his  nobility." 
—  Macky,  "Journey  through  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  198-200,  ed. 
1724. 


w 


144       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

men.  And  when  Englishmen  looked  at  their  rulers  with 
eyes  no  longer  bUnded  by  superstition,  or  dazzled  by 
splendor,  they  saw  nothing  in  them  to  inspire  reverence. 
There  was  no  personal  dignity  to  disarm  criticism,  and 
no  moral  dignity  to  command  respect.  The  Georges 
were  men  as  other  men  were,  —  only  less  dignified, 
more  disagreeable,  and  more  vulgar.  Not  perhaps  more 
vicious  than  the  House  of  Stuart,  the  House  of  Hanover 
did  not  understand,  as  their  predecessors  had  understood, 
the  ^t  of  being  vicious  in  a  gentlemanly  way.  No 
veneer  of  elegance  and  culture  made  the  vices  of  the 
German  kings  respectable. 

As  the  newcomers  did  not  excite  admiration,  still 
less  were  they  fitted  to  inspire  affection.  They  them- 
selves disHked  the  English  people,  and  were  at  no  pains 
to  conceal  that  fact.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
any  cordial  understanding  or  strong  admiration  would 
spring  up  between  a  king  and  people  unable  to  under- 
stand each  other's  language.  But  George  I.  seems  to 
have  taken  pains  to  emphasize  his  want  of  sympathy 
with  his  subjects.  "The  King,"  writes  Count  Broglio 
to  his  master,  "has  no  predilection  for  the  EngHsh 
nation,  and  never  receives  in  private  any  English  of 
either  sex."^  All  menial  offices,  such  as  required  fre- 
quent access  to  the  royal  person,  were  performed  by 
Turks.  Naturally,  when  the  English  found  their  dislike 
1  Coxe,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  303. 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE   CROWN  1 45 

for  their  foreign  rulers  reciprocated,  that  disHke  did  not 
tend  to  decrease. 

Where  character  was  wanting,  there  was  no  ability, 
no  knowledge  of  and  zeal  for  the  national  interest,  that 
might,  in  some  sense,  have  compensated  for  the  lack. 
Ignorant  on  all  subjects,  the  German  kings  were  es- 
pecially ignorant  of  all  that  concerned  the  people  over 
whom  they  had  come  to  rule.  George  I.,  at  least,  seems 
to  have  had  no  desire  to  know  about  English  institu- 
tions. .  His  little  electorate  of  Hanover,  and  Continental 
politics,  as  they  might  affect  that  electorate,  were  of 
much  more  consequence  to  him  than  the  welfare  of  Eng- 
land. "  England,"  says  Lord  Chesterfield,  "  was  too  big 
for  him."  It  was  not  timidity  alone  that  induced  him 
to  hand  over  the  management  of  English  affairs  to  his  '>| 
ministers.     It  was  partly  ignorance  and  indifference.        ■** 

Another  cause  for  the  decrease  in  the  personal  in- 
fluence of  the  Crown  is  to  be  found  in  the  almost  ex- 
clusive employment  for  fifty  years  of  one  party  in  the 
important  offices  of  state.  George  I.  was  much  blamed 
for  initiating  this  custom,  but  indeed  he  could  hardly 
have  done  otherwise.  We  have  seen  how  William  and 
Anne  strove  to  maintain  mixed  cabinets,  and  with  what 
indifferent  success.  All  the  difficulties  that  had  con- 
fronted them  in  trying  to  make  a  comprehensive  min- 
istry workable  would  have  confronted  George  I.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  supposed  that  he  would  have  succeeded 


^\ 


146       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

where  they  failed.  But  the  consideration  which  pre- 
vented him  from  even  making  the  attempt  was  not  so 
much  the  difficulty  of  getting  state  business  done  in 
\that  way,  as  the  dangerous  position  in  which  such  an 
Arrangement  would  have  placed  him.  For  George  I. 
-/came  in  as  the  prot^g^  of  the  Whigs.  The  Tory  King 
\was  James  III.^  The  introduction  of  Tories  into  the 
Cabinet  of  George  I.  was  considered  unsafe,  as  the 
introduction  of  Whigs  into  the  Cabinet  of  James  III. 
would  have  been  considered  unsafe.^ 

If  fear  and  indifference  had  not  led  the  Hanoverian 
kings  to  surrender  their  personal  rule  to  so  large  an 
extent,  the  establishment  of  party  government  would 
have  compelled  them  to  do  so.  For,  as  William  and 
Anne  had  foreseen,  the  sovereign  who  employs  servants 
taken  entirely  from  one  party  must  submit  to  the 
dictates  of  that  party.  That  is,  it  is  no  longer  he,  but 
the  party  chiefs,  who  rule. 

1  Doubtless  it  was  the  Whig  policy  to  put  the  Jacobite  tenden- 
cies of  their  rivals  in  as  strong  a  light  as  possible,  yet,  when 
Cowper  told  the  King,  that  while  the  best  of  the  Tories  were  not 
inclined  to  hazard  much  to  bring  the  Pretender  in,  they  could 
be  counted  upon  to  risk  very  little  to  keep  him  out  (Cowper's 
Memorial  laid  before  George  I.  at  his  accession.  Appendix  to 
Ch.  XVIII.  of  Campbell's  "Chancellors"),  he  hardly  exaggerates 
the  actual  state  of  affairs. 

2  There  is  evidence  that  George  I.  did  at  first  contemplate  a 
mixed  Cabinet.  But  he  very  soon  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
would  not  be  safe. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN 


H7 


While  party  government,  whether  the  party  be  Whig 
or  Tory,  must,  sooner  or  later,  lead  to  the  diminution, 
—  the  almost  disappearance  —  of  the  personal  influence 
of  the  Crown,  yet  had  the  Hanoverian  kings  been  in 
a  position  to  appoint  a  Cabinet  composed  of  men  the 
first  article  of  whose  political  creed  was  the  upholding 
of  the  royal  prerogative,  this  result  might  have  been 
postponed  for  some  time.  Fortunately  for  England,  at 
the  time  when  her  .kings  were  forced  to  intrust  the 
entire  government  to  a  single  party,  they  were  no  less 
forced  to  choose  the  Whig  party.  Thus  no  one  was 
left  to  uphold  the  personal  rule  of  the  Crown.  The 
men  who  under  other  circumstances  would  have  done 
so  were  perforce  given  no  part  in  the  administration. 
The  men  whom  the  new  monarchs  were  obliged  to 
employ  were  those  whose  fundamental  principle  it  was 
to  maintain  a  steady  opposition  to  what  they  considered 
an  abuse  of  the  royal  power.  And  it  was  not  long  be- 
fore they  came  to  believe  that  almost  any  direct  use 
of  this  power  was  an  abuse  —  that  only  as  it  was 
delegated  to  responsible  ministers  could  it  be  an  ad- 
vantage to  the  state. 

Moreover,  the  attitude  which  the  Tories  held  for  so 
long  a  time  toward  the  occupants  of  the  throne  led  to 
an  important  change  in  their  political  creed.  Since  the 
death  of  Anne  they  have  made  no  attempt  to  extend 
the  royal  prerogative.     The  accession  of  a  king  in  whose 


148       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

title  they  did  not  believe,  and  whose  person  they  did 
not  desire,  made  them  what  they  are  to-day  —  an  aristo- 
cratic  rather  than  a  monarchical  party.  Thus,  not  only 
did  the  circumstances  under  which  the  House  of  Han- 
over came  to  the  throne  render  it  impossible  for  the 
earHer  kings  of  that  line  to  receive  any  support  from 
the  high  prerogative  party,  but  as  a  further  consequence 
of  those  circumstances,  the  party  itself,  as  a  high  pre- 
rogative party,  became  extinct.  Never  again  would  a 
king  of  England,  who  might  wish  to  extend  his  powers 
beyond  the  Hmits  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  be 
able  to  find  a  party  whose  poHtical  principles  would 
support  him  in  such  an  attempt.  So  the  Hberties  of 
the  subject,  as  against  the  sovereign  at  least,  were  fully 
secured.  i 

Thus  almost  every  cause  which  could  tend  to  lessen 
the  personal  influence  of  the  Crown  was  brought  into 
operation  by  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover. 
The  disappearance  of  the  popular  superstition  which  had 
glorified  the  person  and  office  of  the  sovereign;  the 
fact  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  nation  looked 
upon  the  de  facto  King  as  a  usurper,  and  felt  that  their 
allegiance  was  due  elsewhere ;  the  disadvantages  which 
the  new  kings  were  under  as  foreigners ;  their  inferior 
characters  and  contemptible  abilities  ;  their  ignorance  of 
and  lack  of  interest  in  the  English  people  and  their  Con- 
\  stitution  ;  their  personal  unpopularity ;  the  necessity  under 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE    CROWN  1 49 

which  they  lay  to  employ  but  one  party,  and  that  the 
party  opposed  to  any  extension  of  the  royal  authority ; 
and  finally,  as  a  result  of  all  these  circumstances,  the 
extinction  of  high  prerogative  sentiments  in  the  conserva- 
tive quite  as  much  as  in  the  progressive  party,  —  all  these 
causes  combined  to  transfer  the  efficient  power  of  gov- 
ernment from  the  King  to  Parliament  and  the  ministers. 

We  see  the  result  of  this  remarkable  accumulation  of 
causes  first  in  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  ministers. 
Yet  it  did  not  at  once  make  itself  manifest.  For  in- 
stance, every  one  recognized  that  after  the  death  of 
Anne,  a  long  period  of  the  ascendency  of  one  party  was 
inevitable ;  but  every  one  also  recognized  that  the  settle- 
ment of  the  question  as  to  who  the  king  should  be, 
would  also  settle  the  question  as  to  which  the  party 
should  be.  The  Whigs  did  not  come  into  power  because 
they  were  the  stronger  party  in  the  state.  Indeed,  while 
they  were  somewhat  stronger  in  organization  than  were 
the  Tories,  they  were  weaker  in  numbers.  They  came 
into  power  because  there  was  a  Whig  king  on  the  throne. 
Had  the  other  king  been  proclaimed,  the  other  party 
would  have  been  dominant.  Nor  was  the  King  willing, 
having  chosen  the  party,  or  rather  having  been  chosen 
by  the  party,  to  allow  that  party  to  appoint  the  ministers 
He  appointed  them  himself,  nor  did  he  appoint  the  men 
whom  the  party  would  have  appointed.  He  allowed  the 
three  great  leaders,  Halifax,  Sunderland,  and  Marlborough 


H 


I50       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

very  subordinate  positions.  As  Secretary  of  State  and 
first  minister  he  chose  Lord  Townshend,  a  man  of  only 
fair  abiUties,  who  had  not  yet  taken  the  position  of  a 
party  leader.^ 

If  the  hand  of  the  King  was  noticeable  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  his  first  Cabinet,  still  more  noticeable  was  it  in 
the  changes  made  in  that  Cabinet  in  1716  and  171 7. 
The  circumstances  which  led  to  these  changes  were 
somewhat  compHcated.  The  King  was  displeased  be- 
cause the  ministers  did  not  enter  heartily  into  his  Conti- 
nental policy.  In  negotiating  a  treaty  with  France,  there 
were  delays  for  which  Townshend  was  responsible. 
Although  the  minister  afterward  explained  his  course  to 
the  King's  satisfaction,  the  friction  caused  by  the  event 
was  not  altogether  removed.  ■  There  was  also  a  misunder- 
standing with  Walpole,  the  Paymaster  of  the  Forces, 
concerning  the  pay  for  the  Saxe-Gotha  troops.  As 
Walpole  was  at  this  time  considered  Townshend's  man, 
the  chief  was  in  some  measure  held  responsible  for  the 
conduct  of  the  subordinate.     While  the  King  was  out  of 

1  The  first  Cabinet  of  George  I.  consisted  of  Townshend  and 
Stanhope,  Secretaries  of  State,  Cowper,  Lord  Chancellor,  Notting- 
ham, President  of  the  Council,  Sunderland,  ^ord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland,  Somers,  probably  without  office,  and  Marlborough,  Cap- 
tain General.  There  was  one  Tory  in  this  Cabinet,  Nottingham; 
but  he  had  for  some  time  been  acting  with  the  Whigs.  Owing  to 
his  disapproval  of  the  sentence  passed  upon  the  Scotch  rebel  noble- 
men in  1 716,  he  did  not  remain  long  in  office. 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE    CROWN  151 

England  in  1 7 1 6,  the  Prince  of  Wales  seemed  to  be  try- 
ing to  get  up  a  Parliamentary  interest  in  opposition  to  his 
father.  George  suspected  that  Townshend  and  Walpole 
were  supporting  this.  Sunderland,  the  Lord  Lieutenant 
of  Ireland,  who  had  been  much  chagrined  that  he  had 
not  been  appointed  Secretary  of  State  and  first  minister, 
did  what  he  could  to  set  the  actions  of  his  colleagues  in 
the  worst  possible  light.  Stanhope,  who  was  Towns- 
hend's  colleague  as  Secretary  of  State,  joined  Sunderland 
in  his  efforts.  While  the  King  was  still  abroad,  Towns- 
hend was  forced  to  change  places  with  Sunderland.  The 
King  on  his  return  to  England  acknowledged  that  there 
had  been  a  misunderstanding.  He  promised  Townshend 
that  he  should  be  reinstated  as  soon  as  it  was  consistent 
with  the  royal  dignity.  But  shortly  afterward,  because 
Townshend  and  Walpole  with  their  adherents  did  not 
give  him  the  support  he  wished  in  obtaining  from  the 
House  of  Commons  a  supply  such  as  would  enable  him 
to  concert  such  measures  with  foreign  powers  as  might 
prevent  apprehension  of  danger  from  Sweden,  Towns- 
hend was  dismissed,  and  Walpole,  who  had  risen  to  the 
post  of  First  Commissioner  of  the  Treasury,  resigned. 
Stanhope  was  appointed  to  the  vacant  place  in  the 
Treasury.  Shortly  afterward,  in  order  that  he  might  be 
in  a  position  to  direct  foreign  affairs,  he  changed  places 
with  Sunderland. 

The  important   points  to  be  noticed  with  respect  to 


152       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

this  change  in  the  administration  are  that  it  was  made 
because  of  the  King's  personal  displeasure  with  his  first 
minister  ;  that  it  was  made  while  he  was  out  of  Englau.d  ; 
that  he  consulted  with  no  one,  except  those  who  were  to 
benefit  by  it ;  that  so  far  from  there  being  any  d^^iit^-nj, 
either  in  Parliament  or  in  the  nation,  for  Town^  ''s 
dismissal,  the  news  of  the  King's  action  was  re^,  , 
with  the  greatest  consternation.  "Stop  your  h  :'\" 
writes  Walpole  to  Stanhope,  "  till  you  can  see  and..  \r 
how  all  you  have  done  is  received  here."^  And  a§>  in, 
Brereton  writes  to  Stanhope  :  "  I  will  venture  to  say;/,nat 
the  town  is  in  greater  confusion  than  it  was  at  any  part, 
or  at  any  alterations  whatsoever,  made  in  the  late 
Queen's  reign.  When  I  go  to  Court,  the  very  great 
ones  there,  to  whom  I  had  scarce  the  honor  of  being 
known  before,  salute  me,  and  are  also  very  solicitous  ^  as 
to  the  true  springs  and  causes  of  what  they  don't  so  _^le 
to  call  aloud  these  extraordinary  proceedings.  Ni-  -it 
has  there  been  said  already,  that  never  was  any(^  ig 
more  unprecedented  than  for  his  Majesty,  when  p^  »i 
the  nation,  with  the  counsel  of  one  single  ministeff  --'  »y 
to  make  so  prodigious  a  change  in  the  ministry."  ^ 

L 

1  Coxe,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  149. 

2  Ibid.^  ?•  151'     It  is  possible  that  the  friends  of  Townsh' 
aggerated  th'e  dismay  which  was  felt  at  the  change  of  Prim^ , 
ter.     They  make  much,  for  instance,  of  the  fall  in  stocks  occrr' 
by  it.     The  stocks  did  fall,  but  less  than  one  per  cent.     ^ 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  1 53 

We  have  a  letter  from  Stanhope  to  Walpole,  dated 
January  i,  171 7,  in  which  he  states  the  view  he  wishes 
to  have  taken  of  the  cause  of  the  dismissal,  and  also 
his  opinion  of  the  scope  of  the  royal  authority  under 
:ircumstances.     "I  wish  it  were  as  easy  for  me," 
tes,  "  to  get  rid  of  my  office,  as  I  will  venture  to 
1  it  was  impossible  to  keep  my  Lord  Townshend 
Ought  I  either  in  my  own  name,  or  in  the  name 
ne  Whiggish  party,  to  have  told  the  King  that  my 
d   Townshend   must   continue    to   be    Secretary   of 
te,  or  that  I  nor  any  other  of  our  friends  would  have 
anything  to  do?     I  really  have  not  yet  learnt  to  speak 
such  language    to  my  master.     And  I  think  a  king  is 
very  unhappy  if  he  is  the  only  man  in  the  nation  who 
cannot  challenge  any  friendship  from  those  of  his  sub- 
jects whom  he  thinks  fit  to  employ.      I  think  more  is 
required  of  a  man  in  behalf  of  his  friend  than  in 
alf  of  himself.     And  I  assure  you  that  it  would  be 
ossible  for  me  to  bring  myself  to   tell  the   King   I 
't  serve  him  unless  he  gives  me  just   the   employ- 
fe'that  I  like  best."  ^ 

will  be  seen  that  Stanhope,  in  this  letter,  touches 

number  of  fundamental  questions  relating  to  Cabi- 

;overnment.     Are  the  ministers  personal  servants  of 

;mains  that  the  King  acted  for  himself  against  the  wishes  of 
ajority  of  his  ministers,  of  Parliament,  and  of  the  nation, 
tanhope,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  181. 


154       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

the  Crown,  to  be  appointed  by  the  sovereign  at  his 
pleasure,  considering  neither  the  voice  of  the  nation, 
nor  the  personal  fitness  of  the  candidates,  when  such 
considerations  interfere  with  his  pleasure?  Is  it  the 
duty  of  the  loyal  subject  to  take  office  when  com- 
manded to  do  so,  regardless  of  his  own  wishes,  and  of 
those  of  the  people?  even  regardless  of  his  ability  to 
perform  the  duties  of  the  office?  And  if  the  sovereign 
may  appoint  at  pleasure,  may  he  also  dismiss  at  pleas- 
ure? dismissing  a  minister  who  has  been  guilty  of  no 
misdemeanor,  and  who  has  not  lost  the  favor  of  Par- 
liament or  the  nation?  Finally,  should  the, Cabinet  be 
a  unit?  George  I.  and  all  his  predecessors  answered 
these  questions  as  Stanhope  did.  But  the  very  raising 
of  the  questions  indicated  that  other  solutions  were 
beginning  to  be  thought  possible. 

On  the  death  of  Stanhope,  in  1721,  and  the  forced 
resignation  of  Sunderland  owing  to  his  connection  with 
the  South  Sea  Company,  there  was  an  end  of  the  min- 
istry which  relied  chiefly  upon  royal  favor.  The  great 
administration  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole  began,  —  an  ad- 
ministration which,  during  the  twenty-one  years  of  its 
continuance,  placed  government  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons on  so  sure  a  foundation  that  since  then  nothing 
has  been  able  to  shake  it. 

Yet  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Walpole  was  never  an 
especially  popular  minister.      While  he  did  more  than 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE   CROWN  1 55 

any  one  else  to  transfer  the  power  from  the  King  to  'h 
Parliament  and  the  people,  it  was  the  King  rather  than  ^ 
ParHament  or  the  people  that  put  him  at  the  head 
of  affairs.  It  is  an  oft-quoted  but  true  remark  of  Dr. 
Johnson  that  there  was  this  difference  between  Walpole 
and  the  elder  Pitt,  that  Walpole  was  a  minister  whom 
the  King  gave  to  the  people,  while  Pitt  was  a  minister 
whom  the  people  gave  to  the  King.  If  Walpole  devoted 
most  of  his  energy  while  in  office  to  securing  and 
maintaining  a  Parliamentary  majority,  it  was  in  order 
that  he  might  thereby  secure  the  King.  He  differed  * 
from  his  predecessors,  not  in  courting  the  royal  favor 
less,  but  in  courting  it  differently.  He  made  the  King 
employ  him  by  showing  that  he  and  he  only  was  able 
to  manage  the  House  of  Commons  and  keep  the  nation 
quiet.  If  the  King  sometimes  thought  that  he  required 
him  to  give  up  too  many  of  his  pet  schemes,  he  was  made 
to  see  that  the  choice  lay  between  a  half-loaf  and  none 
at  all.  With  Walpole  at  its  head  the  government  was 
workable.  Some  of  the  things  which  the  King  wanted 
could  be  done.  Without  him  there  was  anarchy  in  the 
Commons  and  rebellion  in  the  nation,  and  all  was  lost. 
When  George  II.  came  to  the  throne,  in  1727,  he 
thought  that  he  could  appoint  his  own  ministers  as  his 
father  had  done  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign.  Having 
been  at  enmity  with  Walpole  for  years,  he  undertook 
to   make   his   friend.  Sir   Spencer   Cbmpton,  his   chief 


156       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

minister.  Within  a  few  hours  it  became  evident  that 
this  was  impossible.  There  was  only  one  man  in  the 
nation  who  could  control  the  House  of  Commons. 
Therefore  there  was  only  one  man  in  the  nation  fit  to 
be  first  minister.  The  King  was  obliged  to  reinstate 
the  minister  who  had  been  his  enemy  for  years,  and 
not  only  the  minister  but  the  subordinates.  Among 
these  was  the  man  whom  he  had  characterized  as  "an 
impertinent  fool"  (Newcastle),  the  man  who  was  a 
"choleric  blockhead"  (Townshend),  and  the  man  who 
was  a  "scoundrel,  fool,  and  dirty  buffoon"  (Horace 
Walpole) . 

Yet  Walpole  was  too  wise  to  place  too  much  reliance 
on  Parliamentary  support  apart  from  royal  favor.  In- 
deed at  that  time  a  minister's  ability  to  retain  his  Par- 
liamentary majority  depended  largely  on  the  popular 
impression  that  he  had  the  support  of  the  Crown.  For, 
even  apart  from  bribery,  other  things  being  anywhere 
near  equal,  the  disposition  of  the  country  was  to  return 
a  House  of  Commons  pleasing  to  the  King,^  and  the 

1  The  first  Parliament  of  every  sovereign  since  the  Restoration 
had  contained  a  large  court  majority.  This  was  especially  notice- 
able in  the  case  of  the  first  Parliament  of  George  I.  Whereas  it 
was  believed  that  there  were  more  Tories  in  the  country  than 
Whigs,  only  fifty  of  the  former  were  returned  to  the  House  of 
Commons  in  17 14.  "The  generality  of  the  world  here,"  said  the 
Lord  Chancellor  Cowper  to  George  I.,  "  is  so  much  in  love  with  the 
advantages  a  king  of  Great  Britain  has  to  bestow  without  the  least 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE   CROWN  1 57 

disposition  of  Parliament  was  to  maintain  the  minister 
pleasing  to  the  King.  Hence  it  became  part  of  the 
policy  of  the  opposition  to  represent  that  the  minister 
was  losing  ground  with  the  sovereign.^  Walpole  there- 
fore exerted  himself  to  the  utmost  to  gain  the  royal 
favor.  The  Queen  was  already  with  him.  With  her 
help  he  secured  the  King. 

By  degrees  a  Parliamentary  opposition  was  formed 
against  the  minister.  It  was  composed  of  Tories  and 
disaffected  Whigs,  the  latter  being  the  more  prominent. 
It  was  led  by  Carteret  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  Pul- 
teney  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Walpole's  fall  in 
1742  was  due  entirely  to  the  strength  of  this  opposition. 

exceeding  the  bounds  of  law,  that  'tis  wholly  in  your  Majesty's 
power,  by  showing  your  favor  in  good  time  to  one  or  other  of  them, 
to  give  which  party  you  please  a  clear  majority  in  all  succeeding 
Parhaments."  Appendix  to  Ch.  XVIII.  of  Campbell's  "Lives  of 
the  Chancellors." 

1  We  find  Walpole  writing,  in  1716,  "The  industrious  represen- 
tations which  are  made  of  our  being  lost  with  the  King,  reduce  our 
credit  to  nothing."  Coxe,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  64.  In  1737  Chester- 
field suggested  that,  in  the  case  of  Queen  Caroline's  death,  it  would 
be  good  policy  to  look  upon  Walpole  as  gone  too,  and  that  whether 
he  were  really  gone  or  not.  Chesterfield's  "  Letters,"  Vol.  V.  p.  427. 
In  1760  Earl  Temple  asked  that  the  Order  of  the  Garter  be  bestowed 
upon  him,  giving  as  his  reason  for  the  request  that  the  royal  dis- 
pleasure with  him  had  been  so  marked  that  he  could  no  longer 
continue  in  office  unless  some  favor  were  shown  him,  which  should 
change  the  popular  impression  as  to  the  estimation  in  which  he 
was  held. 


158       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

He  was  still  high  in  favor  with  the  King,  who  received 
his  resignation  with  tears  in  his  eyes.  He  resigned 
simply  because  he  was  no  longer  able  to  command  a 
Parliamentary  majority.  Such  a  deposition  had  up  to 
that  time  been  unheard  of.  It  was  recognized  as  mark- 
ing a  distinct  era  in  the  decline  of  the  royal  power. 
One  of  the  popular  ballads  of  the  day  began :  — 

"  O  England,  attend  while  thy  fate  I  deplore, 
Rehearsing  schemes  and  the  conduct  of  power; 
And  since  only  of  those  who  have  power  I  sing, 
I  am  sure  none  can  think  I  hint  at  the  King." 

Lord  Hervey,  who  was  Lord  Privy  Seal  at  the  time, 
being  called  upon  to  resign,  ventured  to  remonstrate. 
"  Suppose,  Sire,"  he  said,  "  one  of  your  Majesty's  foot- 
men had  been  beaten  for  trying  to  keep  an  insolent 
mob  off  your  coach,  which  mob  had  shown  that  they 
were  endeavoring  to  approach  your  coach  only  to  insult 
you,  to  force  you  to  let  them  drive  it,  or  to  attempt 
to  overturn  it.  Could  your  Majesty  possibly  at  the  insti- 
gation of  that  very  mob  turn  away  such  a  footman  with 
the  same  marks  of  your  displeasure  that  you  would  do 
any  servant  who  deserves  such  treatment  by  the  worst 
behavior?  keep  those  only  in  your  service  who  had 
underhand  encouraged  that  mob  whom  he  had  re- 
sisted?" "The  strange  weak  answer,"  Lord  Hervey 
wrote  to  his  father,  "  he  made  this,  can  never  be  guessed, 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  1 59 

and  will  scarcely  be  credited  when  I  say  it  was,  *  My 
Lord,  there  would  not  be  so  much  striving  for  a  foot- 
man's place.*  "  ^ 

Not  only  was  the  King  not  able  to  retain  the  ministers 
whom  he  wished  to  retain ;  he  was  equally  powerless  to 
appoint  their  successors.  He  did  not  dare  to  interfere 
with  the  business  of  cabinet-making  at  all,  but  perforce 
handed  everything  over  to  the  victorious  leaders  whom 
he  hated.  The  ballad-maker  before  quoted  makes  Car- 
teret address  his  master  in  this  way :  — 

"  Perhaps  now  you  expect  that  I  should  begin, 
To  tell  you  the  men  I  design  to  bring  in; 
But  we've  not  yet  determined  on  all  their  demands, 
And  you'll  know  soon  enough,  when  they  come  to  kiss  hands." 

Lord  Hervey's  letters  to  his  father  at  this  time  are 
interesting.  He  writes  that  he  said  to  the  King  :  "  Your 
Majesty  cannot  but  be  sensible  that  in  all  these  changes, 
rewards,  and  promotions,  you  have  not  been  able  to 
protect  any  one  man  they  had  determined  to  disgrace, 
or  prefer  one  whom  they  had  resolved  should  not  come 
in.  All  that  has  been  left  to  be  done  in  your  Majesty's 
closet  has  been  to  force  you  to  give  your  fiat  to  what  has 
previously  been  consulted  by  your  son  and  Mr.  Pulteney 
at  Carlton  House,  and  conveyed  to  your  Majesty  by 
the   Duke  of  Newcastle  and  Mr.   Pelham,  who  are  to 

1  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  II.  p.  590. 


K 
\J 


l6o       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

have  all  the  merit  with  the  Prince  of  promoting  his 
pleasures,  and  shelter  themselves  from  your  Majesty's 
anger,  while  they  are  gaining  his  favor,  by  exclaiming 
themselves  against  what  they  propose,  and  saying  that 
it  is  intolerable,  unreasonable,  and  unjust ;  but  that  Mr. 
Pulteney's  authority,  weight,  consideration,  and  power 
is  such  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  there  is  no 
withstanding  it  at  present,  and  that  his  demands,  though 
ever  so  exorbitant,  must  be  complied  with."^  And 
again,  July  6,  1742,  he  writes  that  he  said  to  King 
George :  "  I  look  upon  this  week  as  the  great  crisis 
in  which  it  is  to  be  determined  whether  your  Majesty  is 
ever  to  be  king  and  supreme  governor  in  this  country, 
or  not  j  and  whether  the  nerves  and  essence  of  govern- 
ment shall  again  be  united  to  the  titles  and  shows  of 
government,  or  remain  in  different  conflicting  situations. 
...  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  think  they  have  a 
right  to  dictate  to  your  Majesty  whom  you  shall,  or  shall 
not,  employ,  and  however  successful  those  who  have 
acted  in  that  capacity  have  lately  been,  I  envy  them  not 
their  success  by  such  methods,  and  upon  such  terms. 
The  very  word  of  the  tenure  by  which  we  hold  our  office 
is  during  your  Majesty's  pleasure,  and  when  that  alters, 
I  know  of  no  privilege  any  one  has  to  ask  your  Majesty's 
reasons."  ^ 

Never  before  in  quiet  times  had  ministers  been  in 
1  Hervey,  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  11.  p.  573.        2  /^^-^^^  p,  ^85. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  l6l 

the  powerful  position  in  which  the  victorious  opponents 
of  Walpole  found  themselves.  Parliament  and  the  nation 
were  with  them.  The  King  was  powerless  against  them. 
The  fallen  minister  thought  himself  happy  if  they  would 
but  spare  his  life.  Yet  they  did  not  venture  upon  any- 
thing so  radical  as  an  entire  change  in  administration. 
Most  of  the  members  of  Walpole's  Cabinet  were  re- 
^tained.  There  were  three  important  changes.  The 
King's  old  friend,  Sir  Spencer  Compton,  who  had  been 
raised  to  the  peerage  as  Lord  Wilmington,  took  Wal- 
pole's place  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  Carteret 
was  made  Secretary  of  State,  and  Pulteney  was  given  a 
seat  in  the  Cabinet  without  office.  Divisions  among 
themselves  prevented  the  ministers  from  availing  them- 
selves Qf  their  opportunities.  There  was,  of  course,  the 
feud  between  the  old  and  the  new  members  of  the 
Cabinet.  Nor  had  the  new  ministers  any  definite  pro- 
gramme to  offer.  They  had  come  into  office  with  no 
point  of  agreement  except  opposition  to  Walpole. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  weakness  of  the  new_CabineT, 
the  royal  authority  was  able  to  revive  a  little.  But  never 
again  was  George  IL  to  be  successful  in  maintaining 
ministers  in  power  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  Parliament. 
In  July,  1743,  Wilmington  died.  As  Parliament  was  not 
expressing  any  very  decided  preference  at  that  time,  the 
appointment  was  in  a  sense  entirely  at  the  King's  option. 
There  were  two  candidates  for  the  office,  Pulteney,  now 


1 62       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Earl  of  Bath,  and  Henry  Pelham,  a  pupil  of  Walpole, 
and  one  of  the  members  of  Walpole's  Cabinet  who  had 
been  retained  after  the  fall  of  his  chief.  To  the  King, 
Bath  was  decidedly  the  more  acceptable  of  the  two. 
But  Walpole,  who  though  out  of  office  was  still  his 
trusted  adviser,  pointed  out  to  him  that,  though  Pariia- 
ment  did  not  seem  specially  interested  in  appointing 
the  minister,  just  as  soon  as  the  appointment  was  made  ^ 
it  would  interest  itself  as  to  whether  it  would  maintain 
him  or  not.  Pelham,  he  said,  was  more  likely  to  receive 
Parliamentary  support  than  was  Bath.  Pelham  therefore 
was  appointed. 

The  monarchical  faction  in  the  Cabinet  was  now  led 
by  Carteret,  who  in  1 744  became  Earl  Granville,  while 
the  Parliamentary  faction  was  led  by  Henry  Pelham  and 
his  brother,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle.  In  the  latter  part 
of  1744  the  question  as  to  whether  the  royal  or  the 
Parliamentary  authority  was  the  stronger  was  again  put 
to  the  test.  In  November  of  that  year,  Granville  said 
to  the  Pelhams  :  "  Things  cannot  remain  as  they  are.  I 
will  not  submit  to  be  overruled  and  outvoted  on  every 
question  by  four  to  one.  If  you  will  take  the  govern- 
ment upon  you,  you  may.  But  if  you  can  not  or  will 
not,  there  must  be  some  direction  and  I  will  do  it."^ 
He  doubtless  felt  tolerably  sure  that  since  the  choice 
rested  with  the  King,  the  matter  would  be  decided  in 
1  Coxe,  "  Memoirs  of  Horace  Walpole,"  p.  269. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE   CROWN  1 63 

his  favor.  But  again  Walpole  and  the  Pelhams  con- 
vinced the  King  that  he  must  choose  between  Hanover 
with  Granville,  and  the  Commons  with  the  Pelhams. 
Again  George's  choice  was  made  against  his  own  wishes. 
Granville  was  dismissed. 

The  King  was  at  no  pains  to  conceal  the  fact  that 
his  action  was  entirely  against  his  will.  He  said  that 
Newcastle  was  "grown  as  jealous  of  Lord  Granville  as 
he  had  been  of  Lord  Orford,  and  wanted  to  be  Prime 
Minister,  which,  a  puppy  !  how  should  he  be?  "  ^  When 
the  Chancellor  Hardwicke  told  him  that  it  would  be  bad 
policy  to  show  the  world  that  he  disapproved  of  his 
own  work,  he  said,  "My  work !  I  was  forced,  I  was 
threatened ! "  ^  "  '"'■'       ^ 

The  Pelhams  now  had  everything  their  own  way. 
They  made  terms  with  the  leaders  of  the  opposition, 
and  the  so-called  Broad  Bottom  administration  was 
formed,  several  of  whose  members  were  personally 
offensive  to  the  King.  The  ballad- makers  sang  of  the 
changes  that  had  been  made 

"  In  spight  of  the  Father,  in  spight  of  the  Son." 
A  caricature  was  circulated  which  represented  the  min- 
isters forcing  the  Jacobite,  Sir  John  Hinde  Cotton,  who 
had  been  appointed  Treasurer  of  the  Household,  down 

1  Horace  Walpole,  "  Letters,"  to  Sir  Horace  Mann,  December 
26,  1744.     Walpole  had  been  created  Earl  of  Orford. 

2  Harris,  «  Life  of  Hardwicke,"  Vol.  H.  p.  108. 


1 64       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

the  King's  throat.  The  effect  was  heightened  by  the 
fact  that  Cotton  was  very  corpulent.^ 

Still  a  certain  deference  was  paid  to  the  royal  prefer- 
ence. Because  Chesterfield  was  especially  disagreeable 
to  the  King,  he  was  appointed  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ire- 
land, instead  of  Secretary  of  State.  Thus  the  King  would 
not  be  forced  to  come  into  personal  contact  with  him. 
Pitt  was  given  no  office,  partly  because  the  King  hated 
him,  partly  because  Newcastle  was  jealous  of  him,  and 
partly  because  it  was  deemed  inadvisable  at  that  time  to 
turn  Sir  WiUiam  Yonge  out  of  his  post  as  Secretary  at 
War  —  the  post  which  Pitt  would  naturally  have  filled.  ^ 

In  1746  the  King  made  another  attempt  to  appoint 
such  ministers  as  were  personally  pleasing  to  him. 
Again  he  was  made  to  see  his  own  powerlessness, — this 
time  in  a  more  striking  light  than  ever  before.  Although 
he  had  been  deprived  of  office,  Granville  continued  to 
engross  the  royal  favor.  The  Pelham  brothers,  though 
the  chief  ministers  of  the  Crown,  were  treated  with  scant 
courtesy.  They  saw  that  they  were  retained  in  oiifice 
only  because  the  King  needed  their  Parliamentary  influ- 
ence. Let  him  be  placed  in  such  a  position  as  to  be  no 
longer  dependent  upon  that,  and  he  would  get  rid  of 
them.  Fearing  lest,  in  carrying  the  suppHes  that  winter, 
they  would  secure  their   own   dismissal,  they  not  very 

1  There  were  no  Tories  in  the  Cabinet  of  the  Broad  Bottom  ad- 
ministration, only  in  some  of  the  inferior  government  offices. 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE   CROWN  165 

patriotically  decided  at  a  time  when  there  was  an  insur- 
rection in  the  country  to  test  their  position.  They  de- 
manded an  office  for  Pitt.  It  was  refused.  Lord  Bath 
informed  Lord  Harrington,  Secretary  of  State,  that  he 
had  advised  the  King  to  refuse  to  appoint  Pitt,  and  that 
he  had  also  advised  him  to  take  such  measures  as  would 
enable  him  to  pursue  a  proper  policy  on  the  Continent. 
To  this  Harrington  replied,  "They  who  dictate  in  pri- 
vate should  be  employed  in  public."  ^  He  immediately 
resigned.  The  Pelhams  followed,  and  so  many  others 
with  them  that  the  King  finally  shut  himself  up  in  his 
closet,  and  refused  to  receive  any  more  insignia  of 
office.  He  sent  the  seals  of  the  two  secretaries  of  state 
to  Granville,  with  directions  to  form  an  administration. 
But  alas  !  as  Horace  Walpole  puts  it,  the  favorites  had 
only  forgotten  one  Httle  point,  which  was  to  secure  a 
majority  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament.^  The  new 
ministers  could  at  the  most  command  not  more  than 
eighty  supporters  in  the  Commons,  and  thirty  in  the 
Lords.  Scarcely  any  one  of  reputation  could  be  induced 
to  serve  under  the  new  chiefs.  After  two  days  they  gave 
up  all  hope  of  forming  an  administration.  This  was  the 
ministry  which,  according  to  the  wits  of  the  time,  lasted 
forty-eight  hours,  seven  minutes,  and  eleven  seconds. 
Granville  went  home  laughing,  while  the  King  exclaimed 

1  Coxe,  "  Memoirs  of  Horace  Walpole,"  p.  296. 

2  Horace  Walpole,  "  Letters,"  Vol.  H.  p.  7. 


1 66       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

that  it  was  a  shame  that  a  man  hke  Newcastle,  who  was 
not  fit  to  be  a  chamberlain  in  a  petty  German  court, 
should  have  been  thrust  upon  him  as  Prime  Minister. 
Pitt  was  given  a  place,  but  out  of  deference  to  the  King's 
wishes,  who  insisted  that  he  should  not  have  access  to 
his  person,  the  office  assigned  to  him  was  that  of  Vice- 
Treasurer  of  Ireland.  Soon  after  he  was  made  Pay- 
master of  the  Forces. 

Because  of  these  transactions,  the  year  1 746  is  memo- 
rable in  the  history  of  Cabinet  development.  Previous  to 
that  time.  Parliament  had  on  several  occasions  forced  the 
sovereign  to  dismiss  a  minister  whom  he  would  have  pre- 
ferred to  keep.  Queen  Anne  had  not  only  been  com- 
pelled to  dismiss  ministers  whom  she  wished  to  retain, 
but  she  had  also  been  obliged  to  employ  ministers  who 
were  obnoxious  to  her.  But  never  before  had  ministers 
resigned  because  the  King  did  not  please  them.  Rather 
they  had  been  dismissed  because  they  did  not  please  the 
King.  Never  before  had  the  sovereign  considered  the 
resignation  of  ministers  whom  he  hated,  and  whose  policy 
he  disapproved,  a  calamity.  Nev^  before  had  the  sub- 
ordinate members  of  an  administration  resigned  unani- 
mously^ith  theifTchiet^  JjIevernSeTore  had  ministers 
been  rejected  without  a  trial  simply  because  at  the  time 
of  their  appointment  they  were  displeasing  to  Parliament. 
And  the  very  quietness  with  which  it  was  all  done  shows 
how  great  the   progress   had   been.     The   Pelhams  re- 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE    CROWN  1 6/ 

signed  because  the  King  would  not  listen  to  them. 
There  was  no  violent  uproar.  Successors  were  appointed, 
and  still  no  great  excitement.  But  almost  immediately 
these  successors  discovered  that  they  were  without  the 
means  of  carrying  on  the  government.  So  they  quietly 
resigned. 

His  repeated  failures  in  either  appointing  or  maintain- 
ing ministers  against  the  wishes  of  ParHament  would 
seem  to  have  taught  the  King  a  lesson.  When  Henry 
Pelham  died,  in  1754,  the  appointment  of  a  successor  was 
left  to  the  ministers.  "  Only,"  the  King  said  to  Hard- 
wicke,  "  I  hope  you  will  not  think  of  recommending  to 
me  any  person  that  has  flown  in  my  face."  ^  The  Duke 
of  Newcastle  took  his  brother's  place. 
^  In  1757  George  H.  made  his  last  effort  to  form  an 
administration  to  his  own  liking.  It  was  the  hardest 
and  most  prolonged  struggle  which  he  had  yet  made, 
but  it  ended  in  complete  defeat.  For  five  months  he 
had  been  obliged  to  submit  to  a  ministry  of  Pitt's  form- 
ing. Finding  it  intolerable,  he  determined  to  release 
himself  from  the  bondage.  Accordingly,  he  sent  his 
favorite.  Lord  Waldegrave,  to  try  to  induce  Newcastle 
to  form  an  administration.  "  Tell  him,"  he  said,  "  that 
I  do  not  look  upon  myself  as  King  while  I  am  in  the 
hands  of  these  scoundrels;  that  I  am  determined  to 
get  rid  of  them  at  any  rate  ;  that  I  expect  his  assistance, 

1  The  allusion  was  to  Fox. 


1 68       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

and  he  may  depend  upon  my  favor  and  protection." 
When  Newcastle  advised  delay  until  the  supplies  were 
granted,  the  King  said  to  Waldegrave  :  "  Neither  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  nor  yourself  are  judges  of  what  I 
feel.  I  can  endure  this  insolence  no  longer."  When 
he  could  not  induce  Newcastle  to  assume  the  responsi- 
bilities of  government,  he  even  appealed  to  Henry  Fox, 
whom  he  disliked  only  less  than  Pitt.  Fox  made  plans  for 
a  ministry,  but  owing  to  the  objections  of  the  King  to 
some  of  the  members  proposed,  and  the  unwillingness 
of  others  to  serve,  they  were  never  put  into  effect. 

When  the  King  found  it  impossible  to  get  rid  of  the 
man  whom  he  hated  through  the  cooperation  of  either 
Newcastle  or  Fox,  he  attempted  to  do  what  might  have 
been  done  a  century  before,  but  what  he  ought  to  have 
known  could  not  be  done  at  that  time.  He  planned 
putting  his  friend  Lord  Waldegrave  in  the  place  of  first 
minister.  Waldegrave  was  a  man  of  upright  character, 
but  of  almost  no  political  experience.  He,  however, 
understood  the  position  of  affairs  much  better  than  his 
master  did.  He  tells  us  that  in  answer  to  this  proposal 
he  told  the  King  "  that  nothing  could  be  done  for  the 
public  service  without  a  steady  majority  in  both  Houses 
of  Parliament,  and  that  a  minister  must  expect  few  fol- 
lowers who  had  never  cultivated  political  friendships, 
and  who  had  always  abhorred  party  violence."  How- 
ever, when  he  saw  that  the  King  was  not  to  be  dissuaded, 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  1 69 

he  agreed  to  accept  the  responsibility  imposed  upon 
him,  but  added  one  more  word  of  warning,  to  wit, 
that  he  was  "  clear  in  his  own  mind  that  his  administra- 
tion would  be  routed  at  the  opening  of  the  next  session  - 
of  Parliament."  To  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  he  said 
that  "he  had  accepted  office,  not  from  chance,  but 
because  he  thought  it  a  duty  to  obey  his  sovereign's 
lawful  command ;  that  he  was  sensible  that  he  should 
be  exposed  to  many  difficulties,  perhaps  to  some  dan- 
gers, but  should  make  himself  easy  on  that  particular, 
being  determined  to  do  nothing  which  he  should  be 
afraid  or  ashamed  to  answer  for." 

Thus  did  a  feeling  of  loyalty  induce  an  honest,  patri- 
otic man  to  take  office  at  the  command  of  his  King, 
and  against  the  wishes  of  Parliament,  although  he  saw 
clearly  what  the  result  would  be.  He  made  his  selection 
of  colleagues,  but  the  impracticability  of  the  scheme 
manifested  itself  before  it  was  put  into  operation. 
Lord  Holderness,  probably  at  the  instigation  of  New- 
castle, resigned  his  position  as  Chancellor.  Newcastle 
told  Waldegrave  that  he  had  it  in  his  power  to  bring 
about  numerous  other  resignations.  The  King  was 
forced  to  submit  to  a  Newcastle- Pitt  combination. 
Thus  the  will  of  the  Commons  and  of  the  nation  pre-  ,  \, 
vailed.  Yet  it  must  be  noticed  that,  because  of  the  /  ]\ 
royal  prejudices,  the  nation  was  kept  three  months 
without  a  government,  and   that  too  while  Parliament 


I 


170       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

was  in  session,  and  war  was  waging.  "  In  our  present 
unaccountable  state,"  writes  Horace  Walpole,  "  no  one 
knows  who  is  minister  and  who  is  not.  We  inquire  here 
as  the  old  woman  at  Amsterdam  did  long  ago,  '  Ou 
deineure  le  souverain  / '  "  ^ 

The  great  ministry  of  Pitt  now  began.  And  during 
the  remaining  three  years  of  the  reign  the  King  ab- 
stained from  interfering  with  an  administration  which  by 
its  brilliant  conduct  of  affairs  was  justifying  its  existence. 

To  pass  from  men  to  measures,  as  has  been  previously 
indicated  the  first  two  Georges  left  these  largely  to 
their  ministers.  Yet  the  uneasiness  of  the  ministers 
at  the  frequent  royal  journeys  to  Hanover  sufficiently 
indicates  that  the  King's  presence  was  considered  neces- 
sary to  the  steady  transaction  of  business.  The  foreign 
policy  of  the  period  was  of  course  largely  outlined  by 
the  Crown.  The  King  was  sometimes  appealed  to  by 
the  ministers  as  the  arbiter  of  disputed  questions.  For 
instance  there  was  a  difference  in  the  interior  Cabinet  ^ 
of  the  Broad  Bottom  administration  with  respect  to 
the  orders  to  be  sent  to  Admiral  Byng.  This  interior 
Cabinet  consisted  of  the  Pelham  brothers,  the  Chancellor 
Hardwicke,  and  the  Duke  of  Bedford.  In  the  matter 
under  discussion  Henry  Pelham,  Hardwicke,  and  Bed- 

1  A  full  account  of  this  transaction  is  to  be  found  in  Lord  Walde- 
grave's  "  Memoirs." 

2  For  explanation  of  interior  Cabinet,  see  pp.  231-233. 


INFLUENCE    OF   THE    CROWN  I /I 

ford  were  on  one  side,  Newcastle  on  the  other.  It 
was  referred  to  the  King.  He  decided  in  favor  of  New- 
castle.^ The  most  notable  instance  of  a  minister  being 
compelled  by  the  Crown  to  carry  a  measure  against 
his  will  was  when  Walpole  was  obliged  in  1721  to  extort 
;£"  1 15,000  from  the  House  of  Commons  to  make  up 
an  alleged  deficiency  in  the  Civil  List.  No  such  de- 
ficiency existed.  And  it  was  sorely  against  his  will  that 
Walpole  resorted  to  this  double  dealing,  but  it  was 
necessary  if  he  would  retain 'his  position. 

With  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover  the 
sovereign  ceased  to  make  a  practice  of  being  present 
at  Cabinet  meetings.-  Doubtless  the  ignorance  of  the 
first  two  Georges  of  the  English  language  had  much  to  do 
with  this.  But  while  the  King  himself  was  not  present, 
it  seems  to  have  been  not  unusual  for  some  minister 
to  state  his  Majesty's  opinion  on  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration. Thus,  when  in  September,  1736,  there  was 
a  meeting  of  the  Cabinet  to  consider   the  draft  of  a 

1  When,  in  1743,  Carteret  submitted  to  the  Cabinet  the  supple- 
mentary convention  with  Austria  for  approval,  the  Chancellor  re- 
fused to  put  the  seal  to  it.  Carteret  was  angry,  and  said  that  the 
King  would  do  it  himself.  It  was  discussed  at  several  meetings, 
and  finally  there  was  a  division,  —  a  division  the  record  of  which 
has  been  preserved  to  us.  Carteret  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  nine 
to  four.  The  King  was  not  appealed  to.  —  Introduction  to  Philip 
Yorke's  "  Parliamentary  Journal." 

2  See  Appendix  A  to  this  chapter. 


172       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

message  to  be  sent  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  forbidding 
his  presence  at  St.  James,  Walpole  stated  the  King's 
sentiments,  and  said  that  he  beUeved  they  would  admit 
of  no  softening.^  At  the  Cabinet  meeting  to  determine 
what  arrangements  should  be  made  after  the  death  of 
Pelham,  we  read  that,  "  the  Lord  Chancellor  further 
acquainted  the  Lords  that  his  Majesty  had  been  graciously 
pleased,  to  open  to  him  his  own  ideas  as  to  what  might 
be  proper  to  be  done  on  this  occasion ;  and  to  direct 
him  to  communicate  them  to  their  Lordships,  in  order 
to  his  Majesty's  being  informed  of  their  sentiments 
thereupon."^  The  result  of  discussions  in  the  Cabinet 
was  commonly  communicated  to  the  King,  either  by 
the  first  minister,  or  by  the  minister  whose  department 
happened  to  be  concerned. 

During  this  period,  the  disposition  to  hold  the  King 
responsible  for  measures  almost  died  out.  True,  Lord 
Waldegrave  does  assert  that  it  was  the  practice  of  most 
ministers,  "  to  take  all  merit  to  themselves  when  meas- 
ures were  approved,  and  to  load  their  master  with  those 
parts  of  prerogative  which  were  most  unpopular."  ^  But 
the  history  of  the  times  seems  to  indicate  that  Walde- 
grave's  observations  were  hardly  up  to  date.  Indeed 
the  English  had  rather  gone  back  to  the  custom  of  the 
early  Egyptians,  who,  Diodorus  tells  us,  in  a  yearly  dis- 

1  Harris,  "  Life  of  Hardwicke,"  Vol.  II.  p.  516. 

2  Waldegrave,  "  Memoirs,"  p.  91. 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE   CROWN  1 73 

course,  attributed  all  the  good  that  was  done  in  the  land 
to  the  King  personally,  all  the  evil  to  his  ministers.  "  It 
is  true,"  said  the  Duke  of  Argyle,  speaking  in  the  House 
of  Lords  in  1739,  "the  nature  of  our  Constitution  re- 
quires that  public  acts  should  be  issued  out  in  his 
Majesty's  name,  but  for  all  that,  my  Lords,  he  is  not 
responsible."  ^  When,  toward  the  close  of  the  Walpole 
administration,  Parhament  and  the  people  became  so 
incensed  against  the  government,  it  was  against  ministers 
that  the  fury  was  directed,  not  against  the  King.  The 
object  was  not  to  censure  the  sovereign,  but  to  deliver 
him  from  bad  counsellors.  And  unlike  his  predecessors 
in  similar  circumstances,  Walpole  made  no  attempt  to 
throw  the  responsibility  upon  his  master.^  Later,  when 
Hardwicke  pointed  out  to  George  IL  that  by  failing  to 
support  his  ministers  "  he  was  spoiling  his  own  business," 
the  King  replied  :  "  I  suppose  that  you  will  take  care  of 
that.  If  you  do  not  or  have  not  success,  the  nation  will 
require  it  at  your  hands."  ^ 

As  the  minister  and  not  the  King  was  now  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  poHcy,  it  followed  that  the  minister 
rather  than  the  King  must  write  the  speech  from  the 

1  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  IX.  col.  11 38. 

2  He  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,  in  1741,  that,  had  he  served 
a  wicked,  arbitrary  master,  he  might  throw  all  the  responsibility  of 
his  action  upon  him,  but  such  had  not  been  the  case. 

8  Harris,  "  Life  of  Hardwicke,"  Vol.  II.  p.  108.  See  Appendix 
B  to  this  chapter. 


ff  III 


Oi- 


iiiyi\ypL?-s^iTv    1 


174       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

throne  outlining  that  policy.  Before  the  Revolution  the 
kings  had  often  written  their  own  speeches.  If  they 
sometimes  asked  the  assistance  of  a  minister,  it  was  only 
as  one  man  might  ask  the  advice  of  another,  without  feel- 
ing the  slightest  obligation  either  to  ask  or  to  take  it. 
WilHam  III.,  because  of  his  inability  to  write  good  Eng- 
lish, had  some  one  compose  his  speeches  for  him,  but  the 
sense  was  his  own.  "The  language,"  says  Macaulay, 
*'  was  Somers's.  The  sentiments  were  William's."  When 
Anne  came  to  the  throne  she  found  it  the  custom  for  the 
minister  to  write  the  speech,  and  she  did  not  change  it. 
As  the  result  of  her  incapacity  for  public  affairs,  the 
ministers  determined  upon  the  sense  as  well  as  the  words 
much  more  than  they  had  ventured  to  do  under 
William.^  The  Georges  continued  the  custom  of  their 
immediate  predecessors.^    Toward  the  close  of  his  reign, 

1  Yet  they  could  not  altogether  disregard  the  personal  wishes  of 
the  Queen.  When  the  Occasional  Conformity  Bill  was  being  pro- 
jected, it  was  with  difficulty  that  she  was  persuaded  to  express  a 
wish  that  her  subjects  might  live  together  in  peace  and  good  will. 
During  the  Whig  administration  of  her  reign  Walpole  was  some- 
times employed  by  Godolphin  to  compose  the  speech  from  the 
throne,  while  during  the  Harley-St.  John  ascendency,  Swift  was 
sometimes  the  speech-maker. 

2  It  was  on  the  question  of  the  speech  that  it  was  decided  that 
Walpole  was  to  be  the  Prime  Minister  of  George  II.  Compton, 
who  had  been  designated  to  that  office,  was  afraid  that  he  would 
not  be  able  to  write  a  speech  that  would  be  acceptable  to  Parlia- 
ment.    He  commissioned  Walpole  to  do  it  for  him.     When  it  was 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE  CROWN  1 75 

George  II.  was  forced  to  give  up  even  the  right  to  criti- 
cise his  own  speech.  When  the  first  Pitt  ministry  came 
into  power  "  the  session  of  Parliament  opened  by  a 
speech  from  the  throne,  which,  by  its  style  and  sub- 
stance, appeared  to  be  the  work  of  a  new  speech- 
maker.  The  militia,  which  his  Majesty  had  always 
turned  into  ridicule,  was  strongly  commended.  The  late 
administration  was  censured,  and  the  uncourtly  addresses 
of  the  preceding  summer  received  the  highest  commen- 
dation. But  though  his  Majesty  found  it  necessary  to 
talk  this  language  to  ParHament,  in  common  conversa- 
tion he  made  a  frank  declaration  of  his  own  sentiments : 
particularly  being  informed  that  an  impudent  printer  was 
to  be  punished  for  having  published  a  spurious  speech,  he 
answered  that  he  hoped  the  man's  punishment  would  be 
of  the  mildest  sort,  because  he  had  read  both,  and  so  far 
as  he  understood  either  of  them,  he  liked  the  spurious 
speech  better  than  his  own."  ^ 

In  truth  the  people  of  England  were  coming  again  to 
believe  that  the  King  could  do  no  wrong.  But  they  were 
also  coming  to  see  that  the  only  way  by  which  he  could 

completed,  the  King  was  not  satisfied  with  it,  and  wished  certain 
changes  made.  Compton  asked  Walpole  to  intercede  with  the 
Queen  that  it  might  remain  as  it  was.  The  Queen  took  this  oppor- 
tunity to  point  out  to  her  husband  that  a  man  who  could  write  the 
speech  himself  would  be  a  better  minister  than  one  who  was 
forced  to  employ  some  one  else  to  do  it  for  him, 
1  Waldegrave,  "  Memoirs,"  pp.  88-89. 


176       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

do  no  wrong  was  by  doing  nothing  at  all.  Yet  this  was 
not  as  yet  clearly  understood.  When,  in  1 758,  the  Attor- 
ney General  Pratt  introduced  a  bill  to  extend  the  bene- 
fits of  habeas  corpus,  it  was  thought  a  noble  sight  to 
behold  the  first  advocate  of  the  Crown  appearing  as  the 
foremost  champion  against  prerogative.  For  he  was  still 
regarded  as  the  servant  of  the  Crown  rather  than  as  the 
servant  of  Parliament. 

Even  statesmen  failed  to  comprehend  the  security 
which  they  felt  against  any  abuse  of  the  royal  power. 
"  What  I  am  going  to  say,"  writes  Lord  Hervey,  "  may 
sound  paradoxical :  but  it  is  my  firm  opinion,  though  I 
know  not  how  to  account  for  it,  that  although  money 
and  troops  are  generally  considered  the  nerves  and 
sinews  of  all  the  royal  power,  and  that  no  King  ever 
had  so  large  a  civil  list,  or  so  large  an  army  in  times 
of  peace,  as  the  present  King,  yet  the  Crown  was  never 
less  capable  of  infringing  upon  the  hberties  of  the  peo- 
ple than  at  this  time ;  and  that  the  spirit  of  liberty  was 
so  universally  breathed  into  the  breasts  of  the  people 
that  if  any  violent  act  of  power  had  been  attempted, 
at  no  era  would  it  have  been  more  difficult  to  perpe- 
trate any  undertaking  of  that  kind."^ 

But  if  the  statesmen  and  the  people  did  not  under- 
stand the  change  that  was  taking  place,  George  II. 
occasionally  gave  evidence  that  he  did.     "  Ministers  are 

1  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  319. 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE    CROWN  1 77 

the  king  in  this  country  ! "  he  exclaimed.  And  again, 
"This  Constitution  may  be  a  very  good  one  for  the 
people,  but  it  is  a  very  bad  one  for  the  King." 

Appendix  A 

Some  historians  assert  that  neither  George  I.  nor 
George  II.  was  ever  present  at  a  Cabinet  meeting. 
Others  maintain  that  Lord  Waldegrave  gives  an  instance 
of  the  presence  of  George  II.  Now  Waldegrave  makes 
no  distinct  statement  on  the  subject,  but  what  he  does 
say  would  imply  that  the  King  was  not  present.  The 
Princess  of  Wales  and  her  son  had  requested  that  Lord 
Bute  be  appointed  Groom  of  the  Stole.  A  Cabinet  meet- 
ing was  held  to  consider  the  matter.  Waldegrave,  as  the 
Prince  of  Wales's  governor,  was  present,  and  gives  an 
account  of  it.  "  It  was  unusual,"  he  says,  "  for  the  King 
himself  to  be  present  at  such  consultations ;  but  he  had 
already  declared  his  opinion  by  speaking  of  the  Prin- 
cess's favorite,  and  her  partiality  toward  him,  with  the 
greatest  contempt."  In  the  story  which  follows  of  the 
deliberations  of  this  meeting,  the  King  is  nowhere  men- 
tioned as  being  present,  or  as  giving  an  opinion. 

We  do,  however,  have  an  account  of  two  Cabinet 
meetings  at  which  George  I.  was  present.  Coxe  gives 
us  an  anecdote  which  was  communicated  to  him  by 
Lord  Sydney,  Lord  Townshend's  grandson.  Some  evi- 
dence  implicating  Sir  William  Wyndham  in  a  Jacobite 


1/8       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

plot  had  been  laid  before  the  Cabinet.  Wyndham's 
father-in-law,  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  who  was  Master  of 
the  Horse,  and  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  offered  to  be 
responsible  for  him.  The  ministers  were  much  afraid 
of  offending  a  man  of  the  duke's  prominence,  and  one 
who  was  so  influential  in  the  Whig  party.  Lord  Towns- 
hend,  however,  felt  that,  as  the  evidence  against  Wynd- 
ham  was  so  strong,  the  government  ought  not  to  appear 
afraid  to  arrest  such  an  offender,  let  his  rank  or  con- 
nections be  what  they  might.  He  accordingly  moved 
that  he  be  taken  into  custody.  There  was  ten  minutes 
of  absolute  silence,  —  no  one  venturing  to  agree  with 
Townshend.  Then  two  or  three  rose  at  the  same  in- 
stant to  second  his  motion,  and  the  arrest  was  decreed. 
The  King,  who  had  been  present  at  the  meeting,  took 
Townshend's  hand  as  he  retired  into  the  closet,  and 
said,  "  You  have  done  me  a  great  service  to-day."  ^ 

Townshend,  in  a  letter  to  Stanhope,  recalls  to  his 
memory  that  the  King  was  also  present  at  the  Cabinet 
meeting  which,  at  the  time  of  the  Pretender's  landing  in 
Scotland,  advised  that  a  body  of  foreign  troops  be  taken 
into  the  EngHsh  service.  "You  must,  I  am  persuaded, 
remember  as  well  as  I,"  he  says,  "  that  upon  the  Pre- 
tender's landing  in  Scotland,  no  one  imagining  he  would 
have  engaged  in  such  an  undertaking  without  foreign 
assistance,  the  Parhament  gave  the  King  unlimited  power 

1  Coxe,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  I.  p.  71,  note. 


INFLUENCE    OF  THE   CROWN  1 79 

to  raise  what  number  of  men  he  should  think  fit  for  the 
defence  of  the  kingdom.  And  further,  the  Lords  of 
the  Cabinet  Council,  his  Majesty  being  present,  did 
unanimously  advise  and  desire  him  to  secure  or  take 
into  his  service  a  body  of  troops  from  abroad,  and  orders 
were  accordingly  given  to  the  King's  German  ministers 
to  hire  the  troops  above  mentioned." 

Probably  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  George  I.  ex- 
pected to  come  to  Cabinet  meetings  just  as  his  prede- 
cessors had  done.  But  finding  his  inability  to  understand 
the  language  rendered  his  presence  useless,  after  attend- 
ing a  few  times,  he  made  a  practice  of  absenting  himself. 

Appendix  B 
An  interesting  conversation   took  place  between  the 
King  and  Hardwicke  in  June,  1745.     It  has  been  quoted 
from  more  than  once  in  the  text,  but  since  the  whole  con- 
versation bears  upon  the  subject,  it  is  here  inserted  in  full. 

King.  I  have  done  all  that  you  asked  of  me.  I  have 
put  all  my  power  into  your  hands,  and  I  suppose  that 
you  will  make  the  most  of  it. 

Chancellor.  The  disposition  of  places  is  not  enough, 
if  your  Majesty  takes  pains  to  show  the  world  that  you 
disapprove  your  own  work. 

King.   My  work  !     I  was  forced  !     I  was  threatened  ! 

Chancellor.   I  am  sorry  to  hear  your  Majesty  use  these 


l8o       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

expressions.  I  know  of  no  force.  I  know  of  no  threats. 
No  means  were  employed  but  what  have  been  used  at  all 
times,  —  the  humble  advice  of  your  servants,  supported 
by  such  reasons  as  convinced  them  that  the  measure  was 
necessary  for  your  service. 

King.   Yes,  I  was  told  that  I  should  be  opposed. 

Chancellor.  Never  by  me,  or  by  any  of  my  friends. 
If  changes  were  to  be  made  in  order  to  gain  strength, 
such  persons  must  be  brought  in  as  could  bring  that 
strength  along  with  them.  Otherwise  it  would  have  been 
useless.  On  that  account  it  was  necessary  to  take  in  the 
leaders  with  the  concurrence  of  their  friends,  and  if  your 
Majesty  looks  round  the  House  of  Commons,  you  will 
find  no  man  of  business  or  even  of  weight  left  capable 
of  conducting  an  opposition.  i 

Pause  —  the  King  silent. 

Chancellor.  Sir,  permit  me  to  say  the  advantage  of 
such  a  situation  is  a  real  advantage,  gained  by  the 
Crown.  Ministers  may  carry  their  position  in  Parlia- 
ment, and  frequently  do  so  by  a  small  nominal  majority, 
and  in  this  way  they  may  struggle  on  long,  but  by  the 
same  way  the  Crown  always  loses  both  its  lustre  and  its 
strength.  But  when  things  are  put  on  a  national  foot  by 
the  concurrence  of  the  heads  of  all  parties,  and  yet  so  as 
not  to  disengage  your  old  friends,  then  a  real  solid 
strength  is  gained  for  the  Crown,  and  the  King  has  both 
more  power  tp  carry  his  present  measures  for  the  sup- 


INFLUENCE   OF  THE   CROWN  l8l 

port  of  government,  and  is  more  at  liberty  to  choosr  and 
act  as  he  pleases.  Your  ministers,  Sir,  are  only  jur 
instruments  of  government. 

King   {smiles).     Ministers  are  the  king  in  this  c  antry. 

Chancellor.  If  one  person  is  permitted  to  engross  the 
ear  of  the  Crown,  and  invest  himself  with  all  its  power, 
he  will  become  so  in  effect.  But  that  is  far  from  being 
the  case  now,  and  I  know  of  no  man  in  your  Majesty's 
service  that  aims  at  it.  Sir,  the  world  without  doors  is 
full  of  making  schemes  of  an  administration  for  your 
Majesty  for  the  future,  but  whatever  be  your  intention 
for  the  future,  I  humbly  beg  that  you  would  not  spoil 
your  business  for  the  present. 

King.  I  suppose  you  will  take  care  of  that.  If  you  do 
not  or  have  not  success,  the  nation  will  require  it  at  your 
hands. 

Chancellor.  If  right  measures  are  not  pursued,  or 
proper  care  taken,  then  the  nation  will  require  it ;  but 
success  is  in  no  man's  power,  and  that  success  must 
greatly  depend  upon  your  Majesty's  showing  a  proper 
countenance  and  support  to  your  servants,  and  to  what 
you  have  already  done.^ 

1  Harris,  "  Life  of  Hardwicke,"  Vol.  II.  p.  io8  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  VII 

PARLIAMENT  UNDER  THE   FIRST  TWO   GEORGES 

Increased  importance  of  the  House  of  Commons  —  Result  of  ap- 
pointing Parliamentary  leaders  as  ministers  —  Trained  statesmen 
among  the  Commons  —  The  Septennial  Act  —  The  power  of  the 
purse  —  Walpole  makes  the  Lower  House  the  scene  of  action  — 
Whence  necessity  of  always  having  a  prominent  minister  in  Com- 
mons—  Newcastle  tries  to  avoid  this  —  Sir  Thomas  Robinson  as 
leader  of  the  Commons  —  Fox  resigns  as  leader  because  of  insuf- 
ficient power  —  Murray  refuses  to  accept  the  leadership  —  Resig- 
nation of  Newcastle  —  Pitt  without  a  party  in  the  House  of 
Commons  —  Waldegrave  cannot  find  a  leader  for  the  Commons 
—  Yet  no  large  proportion  of  ministers  in  Commons  —  House 
of  Lords  nominates  many  members  of  House  of  Commons  — 
'  Organization  of  Commons  on  party  lines  —  Walpole  the  origi- 
nator of  party  government  —  His  methods  —  Organization  of 
the  opposition  —  Impeachments  of  Oxford  and  Bolingbroke  the 
last  political  impeachments  in  England  —  Influence  of  the  coun- 
try on  Parliament  and  the  ministers  —  The  Septennial  Act  — 
Popular  excitement  over  elections  of  1741  —  Statesmen  alarmed 

V  by  popular  influence  on  politics  —  Parliamentary  reporting  — 
Walpole  withdraws  Excise  Bill  out  of  deference  to  public  opinion 

■^    —  Pitt  the  first  popular  Prime  Minister. 


T 


O  proceed  to  a  study  of  the  increase  in  Parliameh- 
tary  power  during  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth 
182 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES      1 83 

century  would,  after  the  investigations  of  the  last  chapter, 
seem  almost  superfluous.  For  the  advance  which  Par- 
liament made  during  that  period  lay  in  the  fact  that  it 
became  more  and  more  the  minister-creating  body,  the 
government- making  organ.  This  has  been  sufficiently 
noticed  in  deahng  with  the  decHne  of  the  royal  power. 
But  while  this,  the  main  fact,  has  already  been  treated, 
there  were  certain  changes  in  the  constitution  and  or- 
ganization of  Parliament  itself  which  deserve  special 
attention;  certain  developments  by  which  Parliament 
was  assisted  to  gain  its  ascendency,  and  fitted  to  exer* 
cise  it  when  gained. 

The  most  important  of  these  changes  was  the  change 
in  the  relative  position  of  the  two  Houses,  —  the  eleVa- 
tion  of  the  House  of  Commons,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
over  the  House  of  Lords.  The  importance  of  this,  in 
connection  with  our  subject,  cannot  be  overestimated. 
Had  the  House  of  Lords  continued  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  name  the  Upper  House,  the  present  system  of  Cabinet^ 
government  could  scarcely  have  been  worked  out.  For 
the  life  principle  of  that  system  is  the  organization  of 
the  various  forces  of  the  country  on  party  lines.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  House  of  Lords,  a  permanent  body, 
and  in  great  measure  divorced  from  popular  interests, 
could  not  have  been  made  the  starting-point  for  such 
an  organization. 

At  the  period  of  the  Restoration,  and  for  a  long  time 


1 84       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

subsequent  to  it,  the  House  of  Lords  played  a  more  im- 
portant part  in  the  state  than  did  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. This  greater  prominence  of  the  Upper  House 
was  largely  the  result  of  superior  merit.  But  ever  since 
the  Revolution  the  Commons  had  been  gaining  in 
strength.  The  custom  of  choosing  ministers  from 
among  the  Parliamentary  leaders  had  much  to  do  with 
this.  For  inasmuch  as  the  Lower  House  was  the 
changeable  House,  it  was  the  temper  of  that  House 
which  was  taken  into  consideration  in  making  changes 
in  the  ministry. 

Moreover,  the  Commons  were  beginning  to  train 
statesmen  of  their  own,  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  any 
that  were  to  be  found  in  the  House  of  Lords.  This 
was  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  so  necessary. 
To  reduce  the  mob  which  composed  the  Lower  House 
to  anything  like  order,  strong  men  able  to  grapple  with 
great  questions  and  to  control  the  violent  passions  of 
their  fellows  were  needed.  The  demand  produced  the 
supply.  But  further,  not  only  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
but  throughout  the  country,  the  thirty  years  which  fol- 
lowed immediately  upon  the  Revolution  were  years  of 
great  political  activity.  One  who  lived  in  the  early 
part  of  the  reign  of  George  I.  has  left  it  as  his  opinion, 
that  at  that  time  there  was  hardly  a  man  in  England 
who  was  not  a  freethinker  in  politics,  and  did  not  have 
some   peculiar  notions   of  his   own,  by  which   he    dis- 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST    TWO    GEORGES     1 85 

tinguished  himself  from  the  rest  of  the  community. 
"Our  island,"  he  says,  "which  was  formerly  called  a 
nation  of  saints,  may  now  be  called  a  nation  of  states- 
men."^ Therefore,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that 
many  of  the  abler  political  leaders  of  this  period  sprang 
from  the  people.  Still,  the  House  of  Commons  was  not 
as  yet  strong  enough  to  keep  the  eminent  men  whom 
it  had  brought  into  public  notice.  They  were  soon 
transferred  to  the  House  of  Lords.  A  great  Commoner 
still  looked  forward  to  a  peerage  rather  than  to  the 
leadership  of  his  own  House. 

Under  the  first  two  Georges,  there  was  a  rapid  in- 
crease in  the  power  and  importance  of  the  Commons. 
The  causes  for  this  were  mainly  three,  —  the  Septennial 
Act,  the  Power  of  the  Purse,  and  Sir  Robert  Walpole. 
We  will  consider  these  in  turn. 

During  the  reign  of  William  IH.  a  Triennial  Act  had 
been  passed.  This  had  been  done,  not  with  the  inten- 
tion of  decreasing  the  power  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
but  rather  with  a  view  to  limiting  the  authority  of  the 
Crown.  The  object  had  been  to  prevent  the  King  from 
keeping  indefinitely  a  House  of  Commons  which  pleased 
him,  —  to  make  a  repetition  of  the  long  pensioned 
Parliament  of  Charles  H.  impossible.  Nor  was  the 
Septennial  Act  framed  with  the  idea  of  increasing  the 
power  of  the  Lower  House.  It  was  introduced  simply 
1  Freeholder,  p.  63. 


1 86       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

because  the  position  of  the  House  of  Hanover  was  so 
precarious  that  it  was  not  deemed  wise  to  risk  an  elec- 
tion in  1 71 7.  The  Tories  argued  that  to  repeal  the 
Triennial  Act  would  be  to  acknowledge  that  the  King 
could  not  trust  his  people.  That  was  exactly  the  state 
of  the  case. 

Yet,  whatever  the  motives  of  the  promoters  of  the 
Septennial  Act  may  have  been,  the  result  of  that  act 
was  the  elevation  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  a  more 
dignified  position  in  the  state  than  it  could  otherwise 
have  secured.  It  gave  a  certain  strength  and  stability 
to  its  action.  It  enabled  it  "  to  steer  a  firm  course  in 
domestic  and  foreign  affairs."  ^  Its  members  had  a 
better  opportunity  of  becoming  trained  statesmen  than 
ever  before.  Those  who  were  statesmen  had  a  better 
chance  to  exercise  their  powers  than  they  had  had 
before.  They  were  not  hampered  by  the  feeling  that 
in  a  very  short  time  the  whole  complexion  of  Parliament 
might  be  changed.  They  were  able  to  give  to  business 
of  state  time  and  energies  that  had  been  given  to  elec- 
tioneering.^ 

The  second  cause  for  the  increased  importance  of 
the   Lower   House   during  this  period  was   the  power 

1  Hallam. 

2  Speaker  Onslow  frequently  said  that  the  Septennial  Act  formed 
the  era  of  emancipation  of  the  British  House  of  Commons  from  its 
dependence  upon  the  Crown,  or  upon  the  House  of  Lords.  — 
CoxE,  "Walpole,"  Vol.  I.  p.  75,  note. 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     1 8/ 

of  the  purse.  This  was  nothing  new.  It  was  on  their 
control  over  the  national  finances  that  the  power  of  the 
Commons  had  always  been  based.  But  while  the  cause 
was  not  a  new  one,  no  one  can  read  the  history  of  the 
eighteenth  century  without  perceiving  that  at  that  time 
it  gained  a  new  importance.  Since  the  Revolution 
England  had  launched  out  on  a  scale  of  expenditure 
that  seemed  to  her  statesmen  simply  enormous.  In 
1699  Davenant  calculated  that  ;£2,30o,ooo  was  as  much 
taxation  as  the  country  could  bear.^  In  1738  Carteret 
complained  that  the  estimates  had  reached  the  sum  of 
;£6,ooo,ooo.^  Bolingbroke  noted  that  between  1 740  and 
1748,  Parhamentary  aids  had  amounted  to  ;^ 5 5,000,000, 
"  a  sum,"  said  he,  "  which  will  appear  incredible  to 
future  generations."  ^  Smollett  thought  that  the  sum 
raised  in  1743  was  "enormous" — ^10,000,000.'*  In 
1735,  Lord  Hervey  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  England 
could  not  possibly  raise  more  than  ;£  1,000,000  beyond 
what  she  was  then  raising.^  Even  Walpole  estimated 
that  a  debt  of  ;^i 00,000,000  was  as  much  as  ^e  coun- 
try could  bear.®  Under  these  circumstances  the  minds 
of  men  were  fixed  upon  finances  as  never  before.    The 

1  Davenant,  "  Works,"  Vol.  II.  p.  283. 

2  Smollett,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  III.  p.  II. 

8  Bolingbroke,  "  Reflections  on  the  Present  State  of  the  Nation." 
*  Smollett,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  III.  p.  120. 

5  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  487. 

6  Horace  Walpole,  "  Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  103. 


1 88       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

cry  of  the  age  was  a  cry  for  economy.  He  was  the 
best  minister  who  knew  best  how  to  economize.  The 
Excise  Bill,  the  Land  Tax,  the  public  debt,  the  Sinking 
Fund,  the  encouragement  of  trade  —  these  were  the 
matters  that  were  attracting  attention.  And  these  could 
\  be  dealt  with  to  advantage  only  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. 

The  third  cause  for  the  rise  of  the  Commons  in  the 

T  eighteentl>  centurj',  —  a  cause  which  was  in  some  degree 

la  result  of  the  other  two,  was  Sir  Robert  W^lpole, — 

the  presence  in  the  House  of  Commons  for  twenty-one 

f  years  of  the  most  powerful  minister  that  England  had 

"^  ever  known.  That  which  exalted  Walpole's  statesman- 
ship above  that  of  his  contemporaries  was,  more  than 
anything  else,  his  appreciation  of  the  Lower  House. 
He  saw  that  the  Septennial  Act  had  given  this  House 
'  sufficient  stability  to  make  it  a  possible  and  worthy  scene 
for  the  career  of  a  great  minister.  He  realized  the 
growing  importance  of  financial  questions,  and  that  the 
House  of  Commons  was  the  place  for  the  solution  of 
these.  He  recognized  that  his  own  ability  lay  largely 
in  the  direction  of  finances,  and  that,  as  the  minister 
of  the  times,  he  must  work  in  the  House  for  the  times. 
Then,  too,  he  believed  that  the  thing  to  be  done  just 
then  was  to  please  the  people,  —  to  reconcile  them  to 

~  the  new  dynasty.     This  could  best  be  done  through  the 
House  of  Commons,  which  was  in  some  sense  repre- 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO   GEORGES     1 89 

sentative.  Through  it  a  strong  party  could  be  formed 
in  the  country  of  people  who  were  attached  to  the 
interests  of  the  reigning  family. 

Because  of  these  considerations,  Walpole  decided  to 
pass  the  whole  of  his  political  life  in  the  Lower  House. 
He  was  the  first  great  minister  who  chose  to  remain  a 
Commoner  throughout  his  whole  term  of  office.  Indeed, 
during  the  Stanhope-Sunderland  administration  it  had 
been  thought  sufficient  to  intrust  the  management  of 
the  House  of  Commons  to  one  Craggs,  an  insignificant 
Secretary  of  State,  who  was  spoken  of  as  "  Lord  Sunder- 
land's man." 

By  making  the  Lower  House  the  scene  of  action, 
Walpole  made  it  in  effect  the  Upper  House.  Before  his 
administration  was  over,  men  had  adopted  the  fashion  of 
speaking  of  the  House  of  Lords  with  contempt.  "  Sir 
Spencer  Compton,"  says  Hervey,  "  had  at  the  beginning 
of  this  reign  (that  of  George  H.)  been  kicked  out  of  the 
House  of  Commons  into  the  House  of  Lords."  ^  When 
Hervey  himself  accepted  a  peerage,  his  father.  Lord 
Bristol,  wrote  to  him,  "  As  I  am  a  stranger  to  the  many 
secret  motives  which  must  have  influenced  your  choice 
suddenly  to  exchange  the  important  House  you  was  a 
member  of  for  so  insignificant  a  one  as  your  friends  and 
you  have  endeavored  to  make  that  you  are  to  be  trans-, 
lated  to,  I  will  not  take  it  upon  me  to  decide  whether  it 
1  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  143. 


1 90      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

was  upon  the  whole  well  judged  or  not."  ^  "When  I 
have  turned  out  Sir  Robert  Walpole,"  said  Pulteney,  "  I 
will  retire  into  that  hospital  of  invalids,  the  House  of 
Peers."  That  was  what  twenty  years  of  Walpole's  ad- 
ministration had  made  the  Upper  House,  —  a  hospital 
of  invahds.  It  was  the  respectable  retreat  of  the  fallen, 
rather  than  the  honorable  promotion  of  the  victorious 
statesman.  In  the  heyday  of  his  power,  Walpole  de- 
cHned  a  peerage.  In  the  hour  of  defeat,  he  accepted 
the  Earldom  of  Orford,  as  his  acknowledgment  that  his 
political  career  was  over.  At  the  same  time,  Pulteney 
became  Earl  of  Bath.^  "  Here  are  you  and  I,  my  Lord," 
said  the  newly  created  Earl  of  Orford  to  the  newly 
created  Earl  of  Bath  when  they  met  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  "  the  two  most  insignificant  men  in  all  England." 
The  House  of  Commons  having  had  the  first  minister 
of  the  Crown  for  so  long  a  time,  it  was  discovered  after 
the  fall  of  Walpole  that  it  would  always  be  necessary  to 
keep  a  prominent  minister  in  that  House.  It  is  true  that 
for  a  short  time  there  was  no  such  minister.  Until  Pel- 
ham  succeeded  Wilmington  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treas- 
ury  in   1743,  all  the   important   offices   were   held   by 

1  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p  245,  note. 

2  «  And  as  popular  Clodius,  the  Pulteney  of  Rome, 

From  a  Noble,  for  power  did  Plebian  become, 
So  this  Clodius  to  be  a  Patrician  shall  choose, 
Till  what  one  got  by  changing,  the  other  shall  lose." 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO   GEORGES     191 

members  of  the  House  of  Lords.  This  is  certainly  one 
reason  for  the  feebleness  of  a  ministry  which  came  in 
under  circumstances  that  ought  to  have  made  it  the 
most  powerful  administration  that  England  had  ever 
known. 

"Mr.  Pelham  died  in  1754,"  writes  Lord  Waldegrave, 
"  and  our  tranquillity  both  at  home  and  abroad  expired 
with  him."  The  principal  reason  for  the  confusion  fol- 
lowing the  death  of  Henry  Pelham  was  that  there  was  no 
leader  left  in  the  House  of  Commons.  His  successor,  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle,  was  the  first  minister  who  had  seri- 
ous cause  to  regret  that  he  had  inherited  a  peerage.  He 
wished  to  keep  all  power  in  his  own  hands.  But  a  Prime 
Minister  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons cannot  do  this.  He  must  share  his  office  with  the 
leader  of  that  House.  This  necessity  Newcastle  did  not 
understand.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  he  did  not.  It 
had  only  just  become  a  necessity.  Newcastle  wished  but 
to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Walpole  and  Pelham.  He 
did  not  aim  at  more  power  than  they  had  enjoyed,  but 
being  a  peer,  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to  have  so 
much.  "  My  brother  never  disclosed  to  any  one  how  he 
managed  the  secret  service  money ;  no  more  will  I,"  he 
said  to  Henry  Fox,  to  whom  he  had  applied  to  lead  the 
House  of  Commons.  He  did  not  realize  how  different 
his  brother's  position  had  been  from  his.  As  Pelham 
had   been   not   only   First   Lord   of  the   Treasury,   but 


192       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  there  had  been  no 
reason  for  his  disclosing  to  any  one  the  use  that  he  made 
of  the  secret  service  money.  Fox  very  properly  refused 
to  serve  on  Newcastle's  conditions.  He  pointed  out  that 
it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  be  an  efficient  minis- 
ter unless  he  had  full  power.  The  duke,  not  willing  to 
give  up  anything  which  he  thought  a  Prime  Minister 
entitled  to,  set  himself  in  direct  opposition  to  the  current 
of  history.  He  appointed  to  the  vacant  office  Sir 
Thomas  Robinson,  a  diplomat  ignorant  of  the  very  lan- 
guage of  a  House  of  Commons  controversy.  He  had 
been  out  of  England  twenty  years,  and  these  were  the 
years  in  which  the  House  of  Commons  had  been  gaining 
so  immensely  in  importance.  But  it  was  hoped  that  he 
might  be  the  Duke  of  Newcastle's  man,  as  Craggs  had 
been  Lord  Sunderland's  man.  It  soon  appeared  that 
times  had  changed,  and  that  this  hope  was  destined  to 
be  disappointed.  "  Sir  Thomas  Robinson  lead  us  ! " 
said  Pitt.  "  The  duke  might  just  as  well  send  his  jack- 
boot to  lead  us  !  "  Pitt,  who  was  Paymaster  General, 
and  Fox,  who  was  Secretary  at  War,  joined  in  an  attack 
upon  their  imbecile  leader,  Pitt  openly  attacking,  Fox 
sarcastically  defending  him.  No  wonder  that  when  the 
latter  pretended  to  excuse  the  leader  of  the  House  of 
Commons  on  the  ground  that,  as  he  had  been  so  long 
out  of  England,  nothing  save  total  ignorance  and  inex- 
perience of  matters  then  before  the   House  could   be 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST    TWO    GEORGES     1 93 

expected  of  him,  "  Sir  Thomas  did  not  Hke  it."  ^  Night 
after  night  the  two  great  Parliamentary  debaters  assisted 
the  government  leader  to  turn  himself  into  ridicule. 
Night  after  night  the  other  members  went  to  laugh  and 
to  be  entertained.  Fox  complained  in  his  letters  that 
there  was  an  attempt  to  utterly  annihilate  the  power  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  that  it  was  evident  that  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle  wished  to  give  the  Lower  House  no 
share  in  the  government,  and  that  what  tended  to  lessen 
the  Commons  must  ultimately  tend  to  lessen  the  Lords. 
Pitt  bade  the  House  beware  lest  it  become  an  altogether 
insignificant  body,  sitting  only  to  register  the  edicts  of 
one  too  powerful  subject.  To  Newcastle,  he  said  :  "Your 
Grace's  system  of  carrying  on  the  House,  I  believe,  will 
not  do,  and  while  I  have  life  and  breath  to  utter,  I  will 
oppose  it.  There  must  be  men  of  efficiency  and  author- 
ity in  the  House,  a  Secretary  and  a  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  at  least,  who  should  have  access  to  the 
Crown ;  habitual,  frequent,  familiar  access,  that  they  may 
tell  their  own  story  to  do  themselves  and  their  friends 
justice,  and  not  be  the  victims  of  a  whisper." 

The  attempt  to  exclude  all  great  Commoners  from 
office  was  killed  by  ridicule.  Finding  it  impossible  to 
get  on  without  an  efficient  leader  in  the  Commons, 
Newcastle  again  offered  the  position  to  Fox,  but  with 

1  Letter  from  Fox  to  Hartington  in  Appendix  to  Waldegrave's 
"  Memoirs." 
o 


194       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

even  less  power  than  before.  Strangely  enough,  Fox 
accepted  this  time,  and  then  it  was  demonstrated  that 
it  was  not  enough  even  to  have  an  able  leader  in  the 
House.  He  must  also  be  possessed  of  sufficient  power. 
In  October,  1756,  Fox  gave  up  in  disgust.  Newcastle 
then  hoped  that  the  Attorney  General,  Murray,  the  only 
man  of  first-class  ability  in  the  Commons  who  sided 
with  the  administration,  might  be  induced  to  take  the 
vacant  place.  But  Murray  looked  forward  to  profes- 
sional rather  than  to  political  distinction.  Unfortunately 
for  Newcastle's  plans,  just  at  this  time.  Sir  Dudley  Ryder, 
the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  died.  Murray  demanded  his 
place  with  a  peerage.  The  Prime  Minister  was  in 
despair.  He  felt  that  if  his  ablest  supporter  in  the 
House  of  Commons  were  removed,  his  hold  upon  that 
House  was  gone.  He  offered  Murray  the  Tellership  of 
the  Exchequer,  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  for  life,  —  a 
pension  of  ;^2000,  a  pension  of  ;^6ooo,  —  anything,  if 
he  would  but  stay  in  the  Commons.  But  Murray  was 
firm.  If  he  was  not  made  Chief  Justice,  he  would  not 
remain  Attorney  General,  nor  would  he  continue  to  give 
the  government  assistance  in  the  Commons.  He  would 
be  Chief  Justice  or  nothing.  So  he  got  what  he  wanted, 
and  the  administration  lost  its  last  support  in  the  Low.er 
House.  Other  attempts  were  made  to  arrange  matters, 
but  they  failed.  In  November,  1756,  Newcastle  was 
obliged  to  give  up  office,  simply  because  he  could  not 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     1 95 

find  a  man  to  lead  the  Commons.  There  was  no  par- 
ticular objection  to  him  as  Prime  Minister.  The 
trouble  was  that  when  the  Prime  Minister  is  a  peer,  two 
men  are  necessary.  When  he  is  a  Commoner,  one  is 
sufficient. 

With  the  fall  of  Newcastle  the  first  Pitt  ministry  be- 
gan. That  too  fell,  largely  because  it  could  not  obtain 
vigorous  support  in  the  Commons.  Pitt  was  the  favor- 
ite of  the  people,  but  he  could  scarcely  be  said  to  have 
even  a  party  in  the  people's  House.  His  dismissal  was 
indeed  an  act  of  personal  sovereignty  on  the  part  of 
the  King,  but  one  which  never  would  have  been  ven- 
tured upon,  had  the  minister  possessed  an  enthusiastic 
following  in  the  Lower  House.  Thus  it  was  proved 
that  even  conspicuous  ability  and  full  power  were  not 
sufficient  to  secure  success  to  the  leader  of  the  House 
of  Commons.     He  must  have  a  following  in  that  House. 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Lord  Waldegrave's  attempt 
to  form  an  administration  was  made,  —  an  attempt  which 
was  not  given  up  until  it  was  discovered  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  secure  any  one  to  lead  the  Lower  House. 
That  was  what  decided  the  matter.  "It  is  useless  to 
give  ourselves  any  further  trouble,"  the  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford said,  "for  we  cannot  go  on  without  a  principal 
actor  in  the  Commons,  and  Fox  has  not  spirit  enough 
to  undertake  it." 

Yet  while  it  was  coming  more  and  more  to  be  felt 


196       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

that  a  prominent  member  of  the  Cabinet  should  be  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  it  was  not  thought  necessary 
that  any  large  proportion  of  the  ministers  should  be 
there.  We  constantly  find  the  phrase  "Lords  of  the 
Cabinet  Council."  And  the  name  was  still  appropriate, 
for  there  were  very  few  in  that  Council  who  were  not 
Lords.  In  1740,  with  the  exception  of  Walpole,  Sir 
Charles  Wager  was  the  only  Commoner  in  the  Cabinet.^ 
The  circumstances  connected  with  his  appointment  are 
interesting,  as  showing  the  prejudice  that  still  existed 
against  giving  high  office  to  a  Commoner.  In  1733 
Walpole  proposed  that  Wager  be  made  First  Lord  of 
the  Admiralty.  The  King  objected  to  the  nomination, 
saying  that  the  position  ought  to  be  given  to  a  man  with 
great  family  connections.  Whereupon  Wager  produced 
a  purely  imaginary  genealogy  in  support  of  his  claims  ! 
So  little  could  real  service,  unless  it  was,  as  in  the  case  of 
Walpole,  almost  indispensable,  count  against  a  pedigree. 
In  the  Pelham  Cabinet,  as  it  was  constituted  in  1744, 
there  was  but  one  Commoner,  Pelham  himself,  and  he 
was  of  a  noble  family,  the  son  and  brother  of  peers. 

It  must  also  be  observed  that  the  loss  of  power  on 
the  part  of  the  House  of  Lords  was  more  formal  than 

1  See  the  Appendix  to  Hervey's  "  Memoirs."  Sir  John  Norris  is 
also  mentioned  as  being  "  called  in  as  an  auxiliary,  whenever  any- 
thing was  under  deliberation,  relative  to  our  present  maritime  war 
with  Spain." 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     1 97 

real.  It  was  rather  a  change  in  the  method  of  exercis- 
ing power  than  an  actual  losing  it.  For  though  the 
Lords  had  not  the  direct  influence  that  they  had  for- 
merly possessed,  they  made  up  for  it  to  a  very  great 
extent  by  nominating  so  many  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  Yet  it  was  a  great  advantage  to  the  Com- 
mons that  even  formal  power  should  have  fallen  into 
their  hands.  For  when  the  corrupt  influences  of  the 
age  were  done  away  with,  they  found  themselves  pos- 
sessed of  the  real  thing  of  which  they  had  so  long 
possessed  the  show. 

Hardly  less  important  than  the  increasing  prominence 
of  the  House  of  Commons  was  the  tJ2orou£h_  organization 
of  that  House  on  party  lines,  which  was  both\  conse- 
quence and  a  cause  of  that  increasing  prominence. 
Parliamentary  government  without  party  government  had 
been  found  extremely  difficult.  It  was  to  render  Par- 
liamentary control  easier  by  making  the  action  of  the 
House  of  Commons  less  uncertain  that  Walpole,  it  may 
almost  be  said,  invented  party  government.  This  had 
hardly  existed  before  his  day.  The  government,  up  to 
that  time,  had  been  in  the  hands  of  a  number  of  minis- 
ters, owing  their  appointment  in  the  main  to  the  favor 
of  the  Crown,  although  at  times  the  hand  of  the 
sovereign  had  been  to  a  certain  extent  forced.  As 
appointment  had  depended  upon  the  royal  favor,  so 
maintenance  in  office  had  depended  upon  the  retaining 


198       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

that  favor,  —  plus  the  absence  of  any  violent  opposition 
in  Parliament.  As  there  had  been  a  tendency  for 
ministers  to  agree  in  political  matters,  that  is,  to  be 
of  the  same  party,  there  had  also  been  a  tendency  for 
support  and  opposition  in  Parliament  to  be  on  party 
lines.  But  this  latter  had  not  been  more  than  a  ten- 
dency, and  might  have  been  diverted.  As  yet  no  man 
felt  obliged  to  vote  with  the  ministers  simply  because 
they  were  the  leaders  of  his  party.  For  the  King  still 
ruled  as  well  as  reigned.  The  ministers  were  still  his 
servants.  And  so  long  as  executive  and  legislative  con- 
tinued in  great  measure  to  be  distinct  bodies,  so  long 
it  was  not  necessary  that  the  ministers  should  be  the 
acknowledged  leaders  of  an  organized,  disciplined  party, 
comprising  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  following  their  leaders  in  all  Parliamentary 
contentions,  as  a  soldier  follows  his  commanding  officer 
on  the  field.  Thus,  although  political  unanimity  in  the 
Cabinet  would  probably  have  become  necessary  even 
though  we  suppose  the  ministry  to  have  continued  to 
depend  upon  the  King,  party  government,  as  party 
government  is  now  understood  in  England,  would  not 
have  been  a  necessary  consequence  of  that  unanimity. 
President  Washington  found  a  Cabinet  composed  of 
leaders  of  the  two  parties  impracticable,  but  it  has  never 
been  thought  necessary  that  the  party  of  the  President 
and   Cabinet   should   have  a  majority  in  either  of  the 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST   TWO    GEORGES      199 

Houses  of  Congress,  —  still  less  that  they  should  in  any 
sense  exercise  control  over  that  majority.  It  is  only 
a  minister  who  feels  that  he  is  dependent  upon  Parha- 
ment,  that  in  order  to  maintain  himself  in  power,  he 
must  secure  not  only  the  negative,  but  also  the  positive, 
support  of  the  House  of  Commons,  who  has  need  of  a 
Parliamentary  army  behind  him.  A  minister  of  the 
Clarendon  type  cannot  stand  in  the  face  of  violent 
Parliamentary  opposition,  but  he  does  not  require 
vigorous  Parliamentary  support.  Not  until  the  minister 
became  the  real  ruler  of  England,  —  not  until  the 
principal  business  of  Parliament  became  the  making  and 
unmaking  of  these  temporary  rulers,  —  was  it  necessary 
for  every  member  of  Parliament  to  be  active  in  the 
support  either  of  the  minister  or  of  the  opposition. 

Because  Walpole  was  the  first  minister  who  throughout 
a  long  administration  strove  consistently  to  rest  his 
power  on  a  Parliamentary  basis,  he  was  also  the  first 
minister  who,  through  the  House  of  Commons,  began 
to  organize  all  the  forces  of  the  country  on  the  principles 
of  party.  To  obtain  his  majority,  he  saw  to  it  that 
the  Whig  nobles__an(l_iit]li£r_ffiealthy  men  in  the  party 
spent  their  money  freely  so  as  to  secure  the  small  and 
corrupt  constituencies.  This  gave  the  party  considera- 
ble control  over  the  borough  representation,  while  of  the 
representatives  of  the  counties,  nine-tenths  were  rela- 
tives or  dependents   of  the  great  Whig  famihes.     But 


20O       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

more  than  this,  the  whole  course  of  legislation  was 
managed  with  a  view  to  making  the  government  popular, 
and  thus  attracting  votes.  The  minister's  success  in 
dealing  with  matters  of  trade  and  commerce  secured 
him  the  votes  of  the  moneyed  interests  of  the  country. 
His  reduction  of  the  land  tax  conciliated  the  landed  inter- 
ests, which  were  at  first  hostile  to  him.  And  thus  by  their 
own  efforts,  both  inside  and  outside  of  Parliament,  the 
Whigs,  under  Walpole,  won  the  support  of  the  country. 

When  the  forces  had  been  secured,  the  work,  so  far 
from  being  ended,  had  only  just  begun.  Organization 
must  be  insisted  upon.  Discipline  must  be  maintained 
in  the  ranks.  Long  before  he  became  first  minister 
of  the  Crown,  Walpole  showed  that  he  understood  the 
advantages  of  solidarity  of  party.  When  Anne  began 
to  dismiss  her  Whig  ministers,  he  pointed  out  to  his 
chiefs  that  if  the  whole  party  would  unite  against  these 
dismissals,  and  all  Whig  office-holders  would  hand  in  their 
resignations,  the  Queen  would  find  it  impossible  to  carry 
on  the  government,  and  would  be  obliged  to  reinstate 
the  party  as  a  whole.  The  principle  which  he  advocated 
so  early,  he  practised  and  extended  when  he  came 
into  full  power.  "Whig  it  with  all  that  will  parley," 
he  said  to  Pelham,  "  but  'ware  Tory."  It  was  his  policy 
to  guard  against  the  defection  of  the  most  insignificant 
individual  in  the  smallest  matter.  "  The  heads  of  parties 
are  like  the  heads  of  snakes,"  said  Pulteney,  "which  are 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     201 

often  carried  on  by  their  tails."  Because  Walpole  real- 
ized this,  he  was  not  above  giving  proper  attention  to 
the  tails.  "  He  got  time  enough,"  says  Hervey,  "  to 
go  about,  to  talk  to  people,  to  solicit,  to  intimidate,  and 
perhaps  to  bribe." 

In  the  matter  of  bribery  it  is  probable  that  his  moral 
guilt  was  neither  greater  nor  less  than  that  of  some  of  his 
predecessors,  and  some  of  his  successors.  But  he  took 
more  pains  about  it.  He  bribed  more  systematically  , 
and  more  effectively.  Yet  Burke's  judgment  remains/ 
true.  "  He  was  far  from  governing  by  corruption.  He 
governed  by  party  attachments."  ^  He  did  not  spend 
money  in  winning  over  votes  from  the  opposition,  but 
in  keeping  his  own  supporters.  He  said  himself  that 
it  was  necessary  to  bribe  men  not  against  but  for  their  / 
conscience.  So  far  from  bringing  men  over  from  the' 
ranks  of  the  opposition,  he  was  constantly  driving  them 
into  opposition.  He  wished  to  retain  those  only  in  his 
camp  who  were  willing  to  go  all  lengths  with  him.  At 
the  end  he  was  not  the  leader  of  the  Whig  party,  for  all 
the  Whig  leaders  except  himself  were  in  opposition.  He 
was  rather  the  leader  of  the  Walpole  party.  The  busi- 
ness of  that  party  was  to  support  Sir  Robert  Walpole. 
Its  members  were  to  vote  for  all  that  he  wished,  and  this 
whether  they  approved  of  particular  measures  or  not. 
For  the  object  was  not  to  legislate,  but  to  support  the 
1  Burke,  "  Appeal  from  the  New  to  the  Old  Whigs." 


iv, 


202       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

minister.  Before  the  session  of  1742,  he  told  his  follow- 
ers that  no  quarter  could  be  given  in  election  petitions. 
A  friend  expressed  scruples.  He  answered,  "  You  must 
choose  between  Walpole  and  Pulteney." 

For  the  present  mode  of  Parliamentary  government, 
it  is  quite  as  essential  that  there  should  be  an  opposition 
as  that  there  should  be  a  ministry.  For  the  existence  of 
a  vigorous  opposition  is  the  only  safeguard  against  des- 
potism. Therefore  not  less  important  than  Walpole's 
careful  organization  of  his  own  party  was  the  careful 
organization  of  the  opposition,  which  was  indeed  a  result 
of  it.  For  it  was  soon  perceived  that  organization  could 
be  opposed  only  by  organization. 

To  the  superficial  observer  it  looks  as  though  the  men 
who  so  systematically  endeavored  in  the  reign  of  Anne  to 
get  Harley  and  St.  John  out  of  the  Cabinet,  and  Sunder- 
land and  Somers  in,  might  have  some  claim  to  the  title 
of  an  opposition.  But  a  closer  examination  will  show 
that  they  formed  no  opposition  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  word.  For  they  were  an  opposition,  not  to  the  minis- 
try, but  to  the  Queen.  Some  of  them  were  in  the  Cabi- 
net at  the  time,  and  some  of  them  were  out  of  it. 

As  Walpole  was  the  first  government  leader  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  so  he  was  the  first  leader  of  an 
organized  opposition.  It  was  Walpole  who,  after  the  fall 
of  Townshend  in  171 7,  first  made  a  consistent  business 
of  opposition.     He   called   his   followers   together,  and 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     203 

instructed  them  as  to  how  they  were  to  vote,  not  so  much 
with  reference  to  particular  measures,  as  with  a  view  to 
defeating  the  government.  But  though  Walpole  was 
really  the  first  leader  of  an  opposition,  he  rejoined  the 
government  forces  so  soon  that  we  do  not  think  of  him 
in  this  way.  The  first  opposition  which  comes  promi- 
nently into  view  was  that  which  was  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  overthrowing  Walpole.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
Parliamentary  leaders  of  this  opposition  were  Carteret 
and  Pulteney.  Outside  of  ParUament  it  was  aided  and 
abetted  by  the  counsels  of  BoHngbroke.  "They  who 
affect  to  head  an  opposition,"  wrote  the  latter,  "or  to 
make  any  considerable  figure  in  it,  must  be  equal  at 
least  to  those  whom  they  oppose ;  and  I  do  not  say  in 
parts  only,  but  in  application  and  in  industry,  and  the 
fruits  of  both,  —  information,  knowledge,  and  a  certain 
constant  preparedness  for  all  the  events  that  may  arise. 
Every  administration  is  a  system  of  conduct.  Opposi- 
tion, therefore,  should  be  a  system  of  conduct  Hkewise,  — 
an  opposite,  but  not  a  dependent  system.  .  .  .  Accord- 
ing to  the  present  form  of  our  Constitution,  every  mem- 
ber of  either  House  of  Parliament  is  a  member  of  a 
national  standing  council,  born  or  appointed  by  the 
people  to  promote  good  government,  and  to  oppose  bad 
government;  and  if  not  vested  with  the  power  of  a 
minister  of  state,  yet  vested  with  the  superior  power  of 
controlling  those  who  are  appointed  such  by  the  Crown. 


204       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  iN  ENGLAND 

It  follows  from  hence  that  those  who  engage  in  opposi- 
tion are  under  as  great  obligations  to  prepare  themselves 
to  control,  as  they  who  serve  the  Crown  are  under  to 
prepare  themselves  to  carry  on  the  administration."  ^ 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  there  was  only  one  thing  on 
which  the  members  of  this  opposition  could  agree,  —  a 
desire  to  overthrow  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  —  the  difficulties 
of  organization  were  great.  In  1741  Dodington  wrote, 
\"  We  are  but  a  mihtia  with  some  spirit  at  best ;  they  dis- 
ciplined troops,  regularly  paid,  joining  in  the  principles 
as  well  as  the  service  of  their  master ;  taught  to  think, 
and  making  great  proficiency  in  their  learning  that  every- 
thing that  is  advantageous  is  right."  ^  And  Chesterfield 
wrote  at  about  the  same  time  :  "  I  entirely  agree  with  you 
that  we  ought  to  have  meetings  to  concert  measures 
some  time  before  the  meeting  of  Parliament.  But  that  I 
likewise  know  will  not  happen.  I  have  been  these  seven 
years  endeavoring  to  bring  it  about,  but  have  not  been 
able.  Fox-hunting,  gardening,  planting,  or  indifference 
having  always  kept  our  people  in  the  country  until  the 
very  day  before  the  meeting  of  Parliament.  Besides, 
would  it  be  easy  to  settle  who  should  be  at  those  meet- 
ings? If  Pulteney  and  his  people  were  to  be  chosen,  it 
would  only  be  informing  them  beforehand,  what  they 
should   either  oppose   or  defeat,  and  if  they  were  not 

1  Bolingbroke,  "  Spirit  of  Patriotism." 

2  Appendix  to  Dodington's  "  Diary." 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     20$ 

there,  their  own  exclusion  would  in  some  degree  justify 
or  at  least  color  their  conduct."  ^ 

Yet  while  the  opposition  was  composed  of  many 
factions  agreed  only  on  one  point,  there  was  an  amount 
of  organization  in  it  which  had  been  unheard  of  in  any 
previous  opposition.  It  overthrew  Walpole  in  1742  by 
presenting  a  solid  phalanx  to  the  enemy.  After  the  fall 
of  Walpole,  there  was  a  meeting  of  three  hundred  mem- 
bers of  Parliament  at  the  Fountain  Tavern  to  consider 
their  next  move.  This  number  included  all  the  promi- 
nent members  of  the  late  opposition,  except  the  monarchi- 
cal and  aristocratic  Carteret,  who  gave  as  an  excuse  for 
his  absence  that  he  never  dined  at  a  tavern. 

With  the  development  of  the  party  system  we  have 
to  notice  another  change,  which  has  already  been  re- 
ferred to  incidentally,  —  th^gradual  evolution  of  a  quiet 
and  peaceable  method  of  deposing  a  minister,  by  action 
of  Parliament.  Up  to  this  time,  only  by  impeachments, 
or,  at  the  least,  addresses  to  the  King,  could  such  a 
result  be  accomplished.  But  the  day  of  violent  meas- 
ures had  now  happily  gone  by  forever.  The  reign  of 
George  I.  opened  indeed  with  several  impeachments. 
But  these  may,  in  some  measure,  be  excused,  when  we 
consider  that  there  certainly  had  been  more  provoca- 
tion than  on  former  occasions.  Moreover,  no  blood 
was   shed,  and   there  were   few  who  had  any  desire  to 

1  Coxe,  «  Walpole,"  Vol.  III.  p.  580. 


206       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

proceed  to  rigorous  measures.  The  political  impeach- 
ments of  Oxford,  Bolingbroke,  and  their  friends  were 
the  last  to  disgrace  the  annals  of  England.  When,  in 
1 741,  an  address  was  moved  to  the  King,  asking  him  to 
dismiss  Sir  Robert  Walpole  from  his  counsels,  even  the 
enemies  of  the  minister  pointed  out  the  injustice  of  such 
an  action,  unless  accompanied  by  definite  charges.  Said 
Edward  Harley,  brother  of  the  Lord  Treasurer  Oxford, 
"I  am,  sir,  glad  of  this  opportunity  to  return  good  for 
evil,  and  to  do  that  honorable  gentleman  (Walpole)  and 
his  family  the  justice  which  he  has  denied  to  mine."^ 
Walpole  finally  resigned  simply  because  he  could  not 
command  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  so 
small  a  matter  as  an  election  petition.  An  attempt  made 
after  his  fall  to  impeach  him  failed.  Since  then  not 
even  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  impeach  a  minister 
on  political  grounds.  Indeed,  a  political  impeachment 
would  now  be  a  glaring  inconsistency.  For  the  minister 
can  do  nothing  except  as  Parliament  sanctions  his  action. 
How,  then,  can  the  House  of  Commons  impeach  him 
for  what  it  has  not  passively  allowed,  but  actively  pro- 
moted ? 

It  remains  to  consider  the  relationship  which  existed 
at  this  time  between  the  country.  Parliament,  and   the 
ministers.      One  of  the  arguments  against  the  Septen- 
nial Act  was  that   the   longer   duration   of  Parliaments 
1  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XL  col.  1269. 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     20y 

would  put  the  people  out  of  touch  with  their  representa- 
tives. There  probably  was  some  truth  in  this.  The 
representatives  came  to  London  to  live.  Therefore  it 
was  not  possible  for  them  either  to  influence  their  con- 
stituents, or  to  be  influenced  by  them,  in  the  same  way 
as  when  they  lived  among  them.  Bribery  was  probably 
increased  —  bribery  both  of  the  electors,  and  of  mem- 
bers of  Parliament.  In  consideration  of  the  longer 
term  of  office,  candidates  were  willing  to  pay  a  higher 
price  for  their  seats  than  before.  Because  it  was  less 
easy  for  constituents  to  hold  their  members  responsible 
for  their  votes  than  formerly,  the  members  themselves 
became  more  accessible  to  bribery.  And  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  point  out  that  a  House  of  Commons  which  is 
controlled  largely  by  bribery  does  not  reflect  the  opinions 
of  the  people. 

Yet  this  was  an  age  in  which  public  opinion  without 
doors  affected  the  government  in  a  way  in  which  it  had 
never  done  before.  For  what  the  Septennial  Act  took 
from  the  people  with  one  hand,  .it  gave  back  with  the 
other.  It  gave  the  House  of  Commons,  the  agent 
through  which  public  opinion  must  act,  a  dignified  posi- 
tion in  the  state.  Had  the  Lower  House  continued  to 
be  the  subordinate  assembly  that  it  was  while  the  Trien- 
nial Act  was  in  force,  though  the  people  might  have 
moved  it  more,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  would  have 
influenced  the  government  as  a  whole  more. 


208       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Moreover,  the  increased  importance  of  the  people's 
House  gave  the  people  an  increased  interest  in  that 
House.  The  elections  ■Qf^-1-741  were  the  fiisL  upon 
which  it  was  distinctly  understood  that  the  fate  of  an 
administration  depended.  For  the  first  time  men  voted, 
not  so  much  with  the  object  of  getting  particular  candi- 
dates into  Parliament,  as  with  a  view  to  reelecting  or 
'deposing  the  Prime  Minister.  Hence  the  excitement 
was  intense.  A  Frenchman,  who  was  travelling  in  Eng- 
land at  the  time,  gives  an  amusing  account  of  what  he 
was  called  upon  to  endure  as  a  result  of  having  chosen 
election  time  for  his  visit.  "I  am  now,"  says  he,  "at 
Northampton,  a  town  where  there  are  some  of  the  best 
inns  in  England,  but  where  I  am  lodged  at  one  of  the 
worst.  This  has  happened,  because  I  fell  in  with  a  noble 
peer,  who  was  going  like  myself  to  London,  and  who 
insisted  upon  our  travelling  together,  which  I  readily 
agreed  to,  not  knowing  that  I  should  pay  dearly  for  the 
honor  of  his  company.  Each  party  in  this  nation  has 
its  peculiar  inns,  which  no  one  can  change  unless  he 
wishes  to  be  called  a  turncoat.  .  .  .  Our  dinner  con- 
sisted of  a  tough  fowl  and  a  hquid  pudding.  This  was 
not  the  worst.  It  seemed  at  one  moment  as  if  the 
innkeeper's  hatred  of  the  minister  would  give  him  the 
privilege  of  sitting  down  at  the  same  table  with  our- 
selves. The  least  we  could  do  was  to  drink  from  the 
same  glass  that  he  used,  to  his  health  and   the   health 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     209 

of  all  those  at  Northampton  that  are  enemies  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole  (against  whom  I  have  not  the  slightest 
cause  of  quarrel),  and  friends  of  our  innkeeper  (with 
whom,  as  you  see,  I  have  no  great  reason  to  be  pleased). 
Nay,  more,  we  had  patiently  to  listen  to  all  the  argu- 
ments of  this  zealous  member  of  the  opposition,  for  it 
was  not  the  innkeeper  that  paid  court  to  My  Lord,  but 
My  Lord  that  paid  court  to  the  innkeeper.  The  latter 
loudly  complained  that  his  party  in  Parliament  was  far 
too  moderate.  *  How  shameful ! '  he  cried  in  a  pas- 
sionate tone ;  '  if  I  were  a  peer  like  your  lordship  I 
would  insist  that  all  ministers  should  be  expelled  from 
both  Houses,  and  that  the  militia  should  be  disbanded, 
or  else  (here  he  added  an  oath)  I  would  set  fire  to  the 
city  of  London  from  end  to  end  ! '  With  these  words 
he  angrily  wished  us  good  night.  After  he  was  gone, 
*Sir,'  said  my  noble  friend,  'you  must  not  be  surprised 
at  all  this.  That  man  is  of  more  importance  in  the 
town  than  you  can  possibly  imagine.  His  understand- 
ing is  so  much  respected  by  his  neighbors  that  his  vote 
at  an  election  always  decides  theirs,  and  our  party  are 
bound  to  show  him  all  possible  attention.' "  ^ 

The  increasing  influence  which  the  people  were  exert- 
ing upon  administration  and  legislation  was  looked  upon 
by  many  with  no  small  feeling  of  alarm.     In  an  essay 

1  "Lettres  d'un  Fran^ais,"  Vol,  I.  p.  257-259,  ed.  1745.     Quoted 
by  Stanhope,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  III.  pp.  88-89. 
P 


210       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

entitled  "  Faction  detected  by  the  Evidence  of  Facts," 
the  writer,  who  was  perhaps  Lord  Egmont,  dwells  upon 
what  he  terms  "  the  republican  spirit  that  has  suddenly 
arisen."  He  notices  as  a  new  and  alarming  develop- 
ment of  that  spirit  that  the  instructions  drawn  up  by 
some  of  the  electors  of  London  to  their  representatives 
prescribed  the  measures  that  were  required,  and  assert  or 
imply  "  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  member  of  Parliament 
to  vote  in  every  instance  as  his  constituents  should  direct 
him  in  the  House  of  Commons,"  contrary  to  "  the  con- 
stant and  allowed  principles  of  our  Constitution,  that  no 
man  after  he  is  chosen  is  to  consider  himself  as  a  mem- 
ber for  any  particular  party,  but  as  a  representative  for 
the  whole  nation."  He  complains  that  "  the  views  of  the 
popular  interest  inflamed,  distracted,  and  misguided  as  it 
has  been  of  late,  are  such  as  they  were  never  imagined  to 
have  been,"  —  that  "  a  party  of  malcontents,  assuming  to 
themselves,  though  very  falsely,  the  title  of  the  people, 
claim  with  it  a  pretension  which  no  people  could  have  a 
right  to  claim,  of  creating  themselves  into  a  new  Order  in 
the  State^  affecting  a  superiority  to  the  whole  Legislature^ 
insolently  taking  upon  them  to  dictate  to  all  the  three 
estates,  in  which  the  absolute  power  of  the  government 
by  all  the  laws  of  this  country  has  indisputably  resided 
ever  since  it  was  a  government,  and  endeavoring  in  effect 
to  animate  the  people  to  resume  into  their  own  hands 
that  vague  and  loose  authority,  which  exists  (unless  in 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     211 

theory)  in  the  people  of  no  country  upon  earth,  and  the 
inconvenience  of  which  is  so  obvious,  that  it  is  the  first 
step  of  mankind,  when  formed  into  society,  to  divest 
themselves  of  it,  and  to  delegate  it  forever  from  them- 
selves." ^  Lord  Hervey  declared  in  Parliament  that  if 
things  went  on  as  they  had  begun,  he  expected  to  *'  see 
the  speaker  at  Charing  Cross  or  the  Stock  Market,  pro- 
posing laws  to  a  tumultuous  mob,  who,  like  the  Roman 
plebeians,  would  enact,  rescind,  promulgate,  and  break 
laws,  just  as  the  caprice  of  their  present  temper  should 
instigate  and  direct."  ^ 

The  political  tendencies  of  the  people  were  so  feared 
by  the  Commons,  that  whereas  formerly  they  had  wished 
to  keep  debates  a  secret  from  the  King,  they  now  strove 
to  keep  them  from  the  knowledge  of  the  people.  In 
1728  the  House  of  Commons  passed  a  resolution,  de-  / 
daring  that  to  print  any  part  of  its  proceedings  was  a 
breach  of  privilege.^      But  the  public  taste  for  Parlia-i<^ 

1  Quoted  by  Lecky,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  467. 

2  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  203-204. 

3  There  were  a  few  fragmentary  reports  as  early  as  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  but  the  first  systematic  reporting  began  in  the  Long 
Parliament,  which  in  1 614  permitted  it  in  a  certain  specified  form, 
—  the  "  Diurnal  Occurrences  of  Parliament,"  which  was  continued 
until  the  Restoration.  At  the  Restoration  all  reporting  was  forbid- 
den, but  the  votes  and  proceedings  of  the  Plouse  were  printed  by 
the  directions  of  the  speaker.  Andrew  Marvell  sent  reports  to  his 
constituents  from  1660  to  1678.     Locke  wrote  a  report  of  a  debate 


/ 


212       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

mentary  debates  continued  to  develop.  An  enterprising 
bookseller  named  Cave  found  the  means  of  gratifying  it. 
With  a  friend  or  two  he  was  in  the  habit  of  sitting  in  the 
gallery  of  the  House.  They  would  take  down  the  names 
of  the  speakers,  and  the  points  of  the  speeches.  Then 
they  would  retire  to  a  coffee-house,  compare  notes,  and 
write  out  their  reports  a  little  more  fully.  The  next 
thing  was  to  find  a  literary  man  who  would  embellish  and 
adorn  the  tale.  These  curious,  misleading,  but  generally 
entertaining  reports  were  published  in  the  London  Maga- 
zine and  the  Gentleman's  Magazine.  They  were  read  by 
the  people  with  the  utmost  eagerness,  and  in  many  cases 
were  implicitly  trusted.  How  far  they  were  entitled  to 
this  confidence  may  be  gathered  from  the  confession  of 
the  conscientious  Dr.  Johnson,  who  was  at  one  time  em- 
ployed by  Cave  to  put  them  into  literary  form.  "  I  took 
care,"  he  says,  "  always  to  put  Sir  Robert  Walpole  in  the 
wrong,  and  to  say  all  that  I  could  against  the  Hanoverian 

in  1675,  but  it  was  burned  by  the  hangman.  Shaftesbury  also 
wrote  an  occasional  report.  Sometimes  a  news-letter  published  an 
outUne  of  a  debate,  but  this  was  in  defiance  of  the  resolutions  of 
the  House.  In  the  latter  years  of  Anne  short  reports  appeared 
every  month  in  Boyer's  Political  State  of  Great  Britain,  and  under 
George  I.  in  the  "  Historical  Register."  In  1728  Cave  was  brought 
before  the  House,  and  imprisoned  for  having  furnished  Robert 
Raikes  with  accounts  of  the  proceedings  for  the  use  of  the  Gentle- 
man! s  Magazine.  See  Lecky,  "  History  of  England  in  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  479-480. 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER  FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     21 3 

territory."  When  the  good  doctor  discovered  that 
people  believed  the  speeches  to  be  genuine,  he  refused 
to  have  anything  more  to  do  with  them. 

The  subject  of  Parliamentary  reporting  was  again 
brought  before  the  House  of  Commons  in  1 738.  It  was 
in  vain  that  Sir  William  Wyndham  urged  that  the  only 
objectionable  feature  of  the  reports  in  circulation  was 
their  inaccuracy.  "  No  gentleman  ought  to  be  ashamed," 
he  maintained,  "  that  the  world  should  know  every  word 
he  speaks  in  the  House.  The  public  might  have  a  right 
to  know  something  more  of  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
than  what  appears  from  the  votes."  He  found  no  sup- 
port. The  bare  idea  that  gentlemen  of  the  House  of 
Commons  should  be  held  responsible  without  doors  for 
what  they  might  happen  to  say  within  was  shocking. 
And  that  was  what  the  publication  of  debates  must  in- 
evitably lead  to.  So  again  there  was  a  unanimous  resolu- 
tion "  that  it  is  a  high  indignity  to,  and  a  notorious  breach 
of,  the  privileges  of  this  House  to  publish  the  debates, 
and  this  quite  as  much  during  the  recess  as  during  the 
sitting  of  Parliament."^  Offenders  were  threatened  with 
severe  penalties.  Cave,  however,  was  not  so  easily  van- 
quished. He  continued  his  reports  under  the  title  of 
"  Debates  in  the  Senate  of  Great  Lilliput."  Instead  of 
printing  the  initials  and  final  letters  of  the  names  of  the 
speakers,  he  gave  them  fanciful  names.     Moreover,  the 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  X.  cols.  800-812. 


214       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

London  Magazine  was  at  the  same  time  publishing  what 
it  called  "  Debates  of  the  Political  Club." 

In  spite  of  the  meagreness  and  misleading  character 
of  the  reports,  the  people  were  able  to  obtain  a  fairly 
good  idea  of  what  Parliament  was  doing,  —  and  to  exert 
a  considerable  influence  in  shaping  its  course.  The 
general  interest  in  public  affairs  is  manifest  in  the 
numerous  political  ballads  of  the  time,  and  in  the  libels 
on  administration  which  became  so  common.  Except 
in  extreme  cases,  it  was  the  policy  of  Walpole  to  pay 
no  attention  to  these.  He  who  was  so  severe  in  enforc- 
ing discipline  in  the  House  wisely  decided  not  to 
interfere  with  the  free  expression  of  public  opinion  out- 
side. It  was  his  boast  that  never  before  had  a  govern- 
ment suppressed  so  few  libels,  although  never  before 
had  a  government  received  so  much  provocation. 

It  was  out  of  deference  to  pubhc  opinion  that  Walpole 
gave  up  the  one  great  measure  of  his  administration,  — 
the  one  notable  exception  to  his  general  rule  of  leaving 
things  as  he  found  them.  In  1733  he  introduced  an 
Excise  Bill  into  the  House  of  Commons.  It  was  vigor- 
ously opposed  there,  yet  there  was  little  doubt  but  that 
it  could  be  carried.  But  Walpole  soon  perceived  that 
the  temper  of  the  country  was  such  that,  even  if  his 
bill  became  law,  it  could  not  be  enforced  without 
bloodshed.  He  refused,  therefore,  to  let  it  come  to 
a  final  vote,  not  for  fear  that  it  might  not  be  carried. 


PARLIAMENT   UNDER   FIRST   TWO    GEORGES     21 5 

but  for  fear  that  it  might  be  carried.  "  I  will  not,"  he 
said,  "be  the  minister  to  enforce  taxes  at  the  cost  of 
blood."  A  modern  Prime  Minister  would  have  resigned 
rather  than  give  up  the  most  important  measure  of  his 
administration.  But  Walpole's  position  was  not  that 
of  a  modern  Prime  Minister.  He  had  not  suffered  a 
defeat  in  the  Commons,  nor  was  he  in  danger  of  doing 
so.  No  modern  Prime  Minister  would,  out  of  deference 
to  the  people,  give  up  an  important  measure  which  he 
was  able  to  get  through  the  House  of  Commons.  But 
no  modern  House  of  Commons  would  be  wiUing  to  pass 
a  measure,  to  prevent  the  execution  of  which  the  people 
would  be  ready  to  shed  their  blood. 

It  was  this  new  prominence  of  the  people  which  made 
the  career  of  William  Pitt  possible.  "  The  eyes  of  an 
afflicted,  despairing  nation,"  says  Glover,  "saw  in  this 
private  gentleman,  without  birth  and  without  fortune,  the 
only  saviour  of  England."  ^  King,  Lords,  and  Commons 
were  against  him,  but  the  people  were  with  him.  He 
and  the  people  came  into  power  together.  He  was  ap- 
pointed by  neither  King  nor  Parhament,  but  by  the 
people,  the  first  and  the  only  minister  who  has  been  in 
such  a  position.  Later  ministers  have  represented  pub- 
lic opinion  no  less  than  he,  but  they  have  been  appointed 
by  Parliament  acting  as  the  agent  of  the  people,  not 
by  the  people  acting  against  Parhament.     "Sir,"    said 

1  Glover,  "  Memoirs,"  p.  97. 


2l6       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

George  II.  to  Pitt,  "you  have  taught  me  to  look  for 
the  sense  of  my  people  in  another  place  than  the  House 
of  Commons." 

Our  investigations  must  have  convinced  us  that  at 
the  period  which  we  have  now  reached  the  position 
of  a  Prime  Minister  was  a  most  complicated  one.  It 
had  been  comparatively  simple  when  he  was  responsible 
to  the  King  alone.  It  became  simpler  again  when  there 
was  no  direct  responsibiUty  to  any  one  save  the  House 
of  Commons,  through  which  the  voice  of  the  people  might 
make  itself  heard.  But  the  minister  who,  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  was  obliged  to  please  the  King,  both 
Houses  of  Parliament,  and  the  people  at  large,  all  four 
of  whom  were  liable  to  be  at  variance,  found  it  no 
easy  task.  ' 


CHAPTER  VIII 

INTERNAL  RELATIONS    OF    THE    CABINET    UNDER    THE  FIRST 
TWO   GEORGES 

Rapid  development  of  the  office  of  Prime  Minister  —  No  Prime 
Minister  under  George  I.  —  The  firm  Townshend  and  Wal- 
pole  —  Intrigues  of  Carteret  —  He  loses  his  position  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  —  The  firm  becomes  Walpole  and  Townshend  — 
Resignation  of  Townshend — Supremacy  of  Walpole — Yet  he 
feels  obliged  to  disclaim  the  title  of  Prime  Minister  —  Wilming- 
ton  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  but  not  Prime  Minister  —  New- 
castle disputes  Pelham's  right  to  the  premiership  —  Opposition 
of  Carteret  to  Pelham  —  First  use  of  the  noun  Premier  —  The 
Pelham  ministry  a  triangular  arrangement  —  Pitt  sharqg  the 
power  with  Newcastle  —  The  Cabinet  does  not  resign  in  a  body 
—  The  Cabinet  as  a  whole  not  always  consulted  —  Lack  of 
unanimity  —  Walpole  strives  to  enforce  unanimity. 

WHEN  we  come  to  consider  the  internal  relations 
of  the  Cabinet  during  this  period,  we  notice,  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  inability  of  the  foreign  kings  to 
govern  necessitated  a  rapid  development  in  the  office 
of  Prime  Minister.  For  in  order  that  business  might 
be  transacted  to  advantage,  either  in  the  Cabinet  or  in 
Parliament,  an  active,  recognized  leader  was  necessary. 

217 


\ 


2l8       CABIN^.T   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Yet  throughout  the  reign  of  George  I.  it  would  hardly 
\be  correct  to  say  that  there  was  such  an  official  as  a 
|first  minister.^  While  the  King  was  still  on  the  Con- 
tinent, Townshend  was  appointed  Secretary  of  State  with 
power  to  choose  his  colleagues.  This  power  was  doubt- 
less given  to  him  because  of  the  King's  ignorance  of 
English  politics  and  EngHsh  statesmen.  It  designated 
him  as  first  minister  as  no  minister  had  ever  been  thus 
designated  before.  But  Townshend  was  not  at  all 
calculated  to  fill  such  a  position.  His  abilities  were  but 
mediocre,  and  in  the  Cabinet  of  which  he  was  supposed 
to  be  the  leader  there  were  a  number  of  statesmen 
abler  than  he. 

The  dissensions  in  this  Cabinet,  and  its  consequent 
remodelling  in  1716  and  171 7,  have  already  been  re- 
counted. These  dissensions  were  inevitable.  For  noth- 
ing was  to  be  feared  from  the  Tories.  And  in  political 
life,  where  the  enemy  is  so  weak  that  the  necessity  of 
concentrated  action  against  it  is  not  felt,  disagreements 

1  Nor  was  there  any  intention  that  there  should  be  one.  "  The 
breaking  down  of  the  great  offices  of  state  by  throwing  them  into 
commission,  and  last  among  them  of  the  Lord  High  Treasurership 
after  the  time  of  Harley,  Earl  of  Oxford,  tended,  and  may  probably 
have  been  meant,  to  prevent  or  retard  the  formation  of  a  recognized 
chiefship  in  the  ministry,  which  even  now  we  have  not  learned 
to  designate  by  a  true  English  word;  though  the  use  of  the  im- 
ported phrase  *  premier '  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  poetry  of  Burns." 
—  Gladstone  in  North  American  Review^  Vol.  127,  p.  206. 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF  THE   CABINET     219 

commonly  arise  among  friends.  Not  only  were  these 
divisions  natural,  but  they  were  also  beneficial.  To  the 
Whigs,  their  numerous  leaders  were  a  source  of  weak- 
ness. That  the  party  should  attain  the  unity  and 
strength  required  for  efficient  action,  it  was  necessary 
that  some  of  these  leaders  should  be  either  killed  politi- 
cally, or  forced  into  opposition. 

The  dismissal  of  Townshend  and  the  resignation  of 
Walpole  left  Stanhope  and  Sunderland  to  divide  the 
power  between  them.  They  were  able  to  get  on  with 
a  certain  amount  of  amity,  but  neither  could  be  con- 
sidered first  minister.  They  formed  a  partnership  in 
which  neither  party  would  allow  any  special  superiority 
to  the  other. 

It  is  customary  to  date  the  administration  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole  from  his  return  to  power  in  1721.  Yet 
Walpole  had  been  in  office  for  some  years  before  it  was 
correct  to  speak  of  him  as  Prime  Minister.  It  was,  as 
he  himself  said,  a  firm  to  which  the  government  of 
England  had  been  intrusted,  and  at  first  this  firm  was 
Townshend  and  Walpole,  rather  than  Walpole  and 
Townshend.  For  office  was  still  dependent  chiefly  upo^ 
Court  favor,  and  it  was  Townshend  who  had  this  favgr. 

It  was  some  time  before  the  ascendency  even  of  the 
firm  was  undisputed.  Carteret  was  Townshend's  col- 
league as  Secretary  of  State.  His  appointment  had  been 
the  last  official  act   of  Sunderland.      He  therefore  re- 


220       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

garded  himself  as  the  representative  of  the  Sunderland 
faction  of  the  Whig  party.  He  declared  that  inasmuch 
as  he  did  not  owe  his  appointment  to  Townshend,  he 
did  not  intend  to  submit  to  his  guidance.  It  was  his 
aim  to  direct  the  entire  foreign  poHcy  of  England. 
Owing  partly  to  the  fact  that  he  alone  among  the  min- 
isters could  speak  German,  and  partly  to  the  fact  that 
his  foreign  poHcy  agreed  with  his  master's,  he  had  the 
ear  of  the  King.  But  through  the  failure  of  an  intrigue  i 
to  ingratiate  himself  still  further  with  the  Court,  he 
lost  his  position,  and  Townshend  and  Walpole  were  rid 
of  a  dangerous  rival.  The  King's  favorite  mistress,  the 
Duchess  of  Kendal,  was  the  friend  of  Townshend,  and 
through  Townshend,  of  Walpole.  To  balance  this, 
Carteret  strove  to  secure  Madame  de  Platen,  the  other 
mistress.  This  lady  had  a  niece  who  was  to  marry  the 
young  French  nobleman,  Count  de  St.  Florentin.  Car- 
teret determined  to  win  the  favor  of  Madame  de  Platen, 
by  an  attempt  to  secure  from  the  French  government 
a  dukedom  for  the  father  of  the  bridegroom  elect.  He 
therefore  instructed  the  British  envoy  at  Paris,  Sir  Luke 
Schaub,  to  do  what  he  could  in  that  direction.  Schaub 
was  unsuccessful.  His  failure  was  due  largely  to  the 
interference  of  Bolingbroke.  It  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  the  man  who  was  to  be  the  ablest  opponent  of  the 
system  which  Walpole  was  to  build  up  was  instrumental 
in  removing  the  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  Walpole's 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF  THE    CABINET    221 

advance  to  power.  After  ten  years'  exile  in  France, 
Bolingbroke  was  longing  to  return  to  England,  and  to 
his  family  estates.  To  accomplish  this,  he  strove  to 
gain  the  good  will  of  the  Duchess  of  Kendal,  by  defeating 
the  plans  of  her  rival.  His  representation  at  the  French 
court  of  the  state  of  politics  in  England  brought  about 
the  refusal  of  the  dukedom.  Schaub  was  recalled,  and 
Carteret  exchanged  his  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  with 
the  constant  access  which  it  gave  him  to  the  royal 
presence,  for  that  of  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland. 

Their  one  formidable  rival  having  been  thus  disposed  /  ^ 
of,  Townshend   and   Walpole    continued   to   divide   the  \ 
government  between  them.     Still  each  attended  strictly  I 
to   the   business   of  his   own   department.     Townshend 
managed  foreign  affairs,  Walpole  the  finances,  nor  did 
the  one  concern  himself  much  about  the  proceedings  of 
the  other.     But  inasmuch  as  financial  affairs  were  at  that  \ 
time  uppermost  in  the  public  mind,  there  was  a  tendency    \s/y 
to  look  upon  Walpole  as  chief  minister,  in  spite  of  the       V^^ 
fact  that  Townshend  had  the  Court  favor.     And  since  A 

Walpole  had  to  raise  the  money  necessary  for  the  carry-  r       / 
ing  out  of  Townshend's  foreign  policy,  he  gradually  camej     / 
to  realize  that  he  must  have  full  information  with  respect 
to  that  policy,  and  that,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  he 
must  have  control  of  it.     "  I  believe,"  writes  Lord  Her- 
vey,  "that  the  first  dispute  between  Lord   Townshend   — 
and  Sir  Robert  Walpole  began  upon  making  the  treaty 


\ 


222       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

of  Hanover/  which  Sir  Robert  Walpole  always  disap- 
proved, and  would  have  prevented,  though  he  was  forced, 
when  the  measure  was  once  taken,  either  to  maintain  it, 
or  to  break  entirely  with  Lord  Townshend.  Till  the 
making  of  this  treaty  Sir  Robert  Walpole  never  meddled 
at  all  with  foreign  affairs.  They  were  left  entirely  to 
Lord  Townshend,  whilst  Sir  Robert's  attention  was  con- 
fined solely  to  Parliamentary  and  domestic  concerns. 
But  when  Sir  Robert  found  the  clamor  against  the 
treaty  so  great  at  home,  and  the  difficulties  so  mahy  in 
which  it  entangled  us  abroad,  he  began  to  think  it  neces- 
sary to  take  some  cognizance  of  what  gave  him  immedi- 
ately more  trouble  than  all  his  own  affairs  put  together. 
For  though  Lord  Townshend  only  was  the  transactor  of 
these  peace  and  war  negotiations,  yet  the  laboring  oar  in 
that  consequence  always  fell  upon  Sir  Robert.  It  was  he 
who  was  forced  to  stand  the  attacks  of  Parliamentary 
inquiry  into  the  prudence  of  making  these  treaties.  It 
was  he  who  was  to  provide  the  means  necessary  to  sup- 
port them.  On  him  only  was  the  censure  of  entering  into 
them,  and  on  him  lay  all  the  difficulty  of  getting  out  of 
them."  2 

Just   as  soon  as  a  change  was  made  in  the  relative 

positions  of  the  partners,  the  partnership  was  no  longer 

workable.     "As  long  as  the  firm  was  Townshend  and 

Walpole,"  said  Sir  Robert,  "  the  utmost  harmony  pre- 

1  In  1725.        2  Hervey,  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  iio-iii. 


INTERNAL   RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET      223 

vailed,  but  it  no  sooner  became  Walpole  and  Townshend 
than  all  went  wrong."  With  the  accession  of  George 
II.,  the  necessity  of  depending  upon  Townshend  for 
Court  favor  ceased  to  exist.  For  while  the  Duchess  of 
Kendal  had  preferred  Townshend  to  ^^alpole.  Queen 
Caroline  preferred  Walpole  to  Townshenow  The  conse- 
quence was  that  Townshend  was  made  to  feel  that  his 
position  was  thoroughly  secondary.  In  1729  he 
signed. 

From  that  time  Walpole  was  supreme.  With  the 
Court,  the  Parliament,  and  the  country  with  him,  he  was 
able  to  consolidate  his  power  as  no  minister  had  ever 
done  before.  At  times  it  seemed  as  though  he  were  not 
only  Prime  Minister,  but  the  whole  Cabinet.  Pulteney 
declared  that  he  allowed  his  coljeggues  but  little  more 
influence  than  if  they  had  been  clerks,  and  was  always 
seeking  to  displace  them.  "Sir  Robert,"  said  the  old 
Duchess  of  Marlborough,  "never  likes  any  but  fools, 
and  such  as  have  lost  all  credit."  Certain  it  is  that  he 
never  allowed  a  man  of  abilities  such  as  might  rival  his 
own  to  enter  the  Cabinet,  and  the  ablest  men  who  were 
in  it  he  displaced.  For  this  he  has  been  much  censured. 
Yet  the  strongest  and  most  efficient  Cabinets  have  always 
been  those  in,  which  there  has  been  the  greatest  distance 
between  the  Prime  Minister  and  his  colleagues.  Cabinet 
unity,  upon  which  Cabinet  efficiency  so  largely  depends, 
would  seem  to  be  conditioned  upon  this. 


i-^ 


224       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

Yet,  while  Walpole  exercised  such  power  as  none  of 
his  predecessors  and  few  of  his  successors  have  exer- 
cised, in  deference  to  the  feeUng  of  the  time  he  felt 
obliged  to  resent  the  title  of  Prime  Minister  as  an  impu- 
tation. When,  in  1741,  the  Peers  moved  an  address  to 
the  Crown  for  his  removal,  the  principal  charge  brought 
against  him  was  that  he  had  made  himself  sole  minister. 
The  motion  was  defeated.  But  it  was  entered  in  the 
Journal  of  the  House  of  Lords  that  ''  a  sole  or  even  a 
first  minister  is  an  office  unknown  to  the  law  of  Britain, 
inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  and 
destructive  of  liberty  in  any  government  whatsoever," 
and  *'  it  plainly  appearing  to  us  that  Sir  Robert  Walpole 
had  for  many  years  acted  as  such  by  taking  upon  him 
the  chief  if  not  the  sole  direction  of  affairs  in  the  differ- 
ent branches  of  the  administration,  we  could  not  but 
esteem  it  to  be  an  indispensable  duty  to  offer  our  most 
humble  advice  to  his  Majesty  for  the  removal  of  a  minis- 
ter so  dangerous  to  the  King,  and  to  the  kingdom." 

A  motion  was  made  in  the  Commons  at  the  same 
time  as  in  the  Lords,  attributing  to  Walpole  the  sole  re- 
sponsibility for  misgovernment,  because  he  had  "  grasped 
in  his  own  hands^^ery  branch  of  government,  attained 
sole  direction  of  affairs,  monopolized  all  the  favors  of 
the  Crown,  passed  the  disposal  of  all  places,  pensions, 
titles,  and  rewards."  Sandys,  who  led  the  attack  in  the 
Commons,  declared   that,  "According  to  our  Constitu- 


INTERNAL   RELATIONS    OF   THE    CABINET     225 

tion  we  can  have  no  sole  and  Prime  Minister.  We 
ought  always  to  have  several  Prime  Ministers  and  offi- 
cers of  state.  Every  such  officer  has  his  own  proper 
department,  and  no  officer  ought  to  meddle  in  the 
affairs  belonging  to  the  department  of  another." 

What  a  modern  Prime  Minister  would  have  maintained 
as  his  right,  Walpole  was  obliged  to  contend  against  as  ^ 
an  accusation  of  criminality.  Instead  of  admitting  the 
charges  brought  against  him,  and  contending  for  the 
principle  upon  which  he  had  acted,  he  and  his  friends 
contented  themselves  with  denying  the  facts.  The 
Bishop  of  Sahsbury  said  that  there  was  no  proof  that 
he  had  usurped  the  authority  of  first  minister.  The 
accusation  that  he  had  made  himself  sole  minister  was 
combated  by  Lord  Chancellor  Hard wi eke,  who  main- 
tained that  it  was  an  impeachment  of  the  King's  par- 
tiality to  suppose  that  he  could  permit  any  one  person 
solely  to  engage  his  ear.  He  explained  Walpole's  in-  — 
terference  with  patronage  on  the  ground  that,  as  there 
happened  to  be  great  unanimity  in  the  ministry,  appli- 
cants for  places  came  to  him,  not  because  it  was  the 
shortest  way  to  reach  the  King,  but  because  it  was  the 
shortest  way  to  reach  the  minister  who  had  the  place  to 
give  away.  He  added,  "  It  is  very  well  known  that  this 
minister's  recommendation  does  not  always  succeed, 
nor  does  his  opinion  always  prevail  in  Council,  for  a 
candidate  has  often  been  preferred  in  opposition  to 
Q 


226       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

candidates  recommended  by  him,  and  many  things  have 
been  resolved  in  Parhament  contrary  to  his  sentiments 
and  advice."  Walpole  himself  said  in  Parliament,  "  I 
unequivocally  deny  that  I  am  sole  and  Prime  Minister, 
and  that  to  my  influence  and  direction  all  the  affairs 
of  government  must  be  attributed."  In  the  department 
of  foreign  affairs,  he  especially  disclaimed  responsibility. 
"  I  do  not  pretend,"  he  said,  "  to  be  a  great  master  of 
foreign  affairs.  In  that  post  it  is  not  my  business  to 
meddle,  and  as  one  of  his  Majesty's  Council,  I  have  but 
one  voice."  "Yet,"  he  added,  "I  will  not  shrink  from 
the  responsibility  that  attaches  to  the  post  that  I  have 
the  honor  to  hold :  and  should  during  the  long  period 
which  I  have  sat  upon  the  Bench,  any  one  step  taken 
by  government  be  proved  to  be  either  disgraceful  or 
disadvantageous  to  the  nation,  I  am  ready  to  hold  my- 
self accountable."^ 

Walpole's  fall  in  1742  left  the  great  place  which  he 
had  made  for  himself  open  to  any  one  who  was  strong 
enough  to  hold  it.  And  no  one  was  strong  enough. 
Like  the  Whig  party  at  the  time  of  the  accession  of 
George  I.,  the  party  which  overthrew  Walpole  had  too 
\many  leaders.  The  King  offered  the  position  of  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury,  with  power  to  appoint  his  col- 
leagues, to  Fulteney.     It   was   refused.     "Even  should 

1  For  this  debate  see  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XI.  cols. 
1083,  1 126,  1215,  1303. 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET     22/ 

my  inclinations  lead  me  to  accede  to  these  terms,"  Pul- 
teney  said,  "  yet  it  might  not  be  in  my  power  to  fulfil." 
Although  he  was  the  principal  agent  in  appointing  the 
new  ministers,  in  the  Cabinet  of  his  own  appointment 
he  chose  for  himself  a  seat  without  office. 

When  the  King  found  that  Pulteney  would  not  take 
Sir  Robert's  place,  he  asked  that  his  friend  Lord  Wil- 
mington might  be  allowed  to  slide  into  it.  But  although 
Wilmington  was  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  he  was  never 
Prime  Minister.  That  place  Walpole  wished  !^|)^m  to 
fill.  He  wrote  to  him  as  early  as  October,  1742,  "But 
you  must  be  the  first  wheel  in  this  machine,  and  who- 
ever will  think  of  making  your  authority  less,  will  create 
difficulties  that  will  not  be  easily  got  through."  ^  How- 
ever, when  Pelham  became  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury 
in  1743,  his  right  to  be  considered  first  minister  was 
disputed.  His  own  brother,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle, 
objected  to  his  assuming  that  position.  In  November, 
1 743,  he  wrote  to  Hardwicke :  "  There  is  one  thing  I 
would  mention  to  you,  relating  to  myself.  It  must  be 
touched  tenderly,  if  at  all.  My  brother  has  long  been 
brought  to  think  by  Lord  Orford  that  he  is  the  only 
person  fit  to  succeed  him,  and  that  has  a  credit  with 
the  King  upon  that  foot;  and  this  leads  him  into  Lord 
Orford's  old  method  of  being  the  first  person  upon  all 
occasions.     This  is  not  mere  form  j  for  I  do  apprehend 

1  Coxe,  "  Pelham  Administration,"  Vol.  I.  p.  35. 


228       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

that  my  brother  does  think  that  his  superior  interest  in 
the  closet  and  situation  in  the  House  of  Commons  give 
him  great  advantage  over  everybody  else.  They  are  in- 
deed great  advantages,  but  may  be  counterbalanced, 
especially  if  it  is  considered  over  whom  these  advan- 
tages are  given.  I  only  fling  this  out  to  make  no  re- 
mark about  it."  ^ 

But  it  was  not  from  his  brother  and  Hardwicke  that 
the  chief  opposition  to  the  supremacy  of  Pelham  came. 
Carteret,  as  we  have  seen,  had  returned  to  power  as 
Secretary  of  State.  As  he  had  asserted  himself  against 
Walpole,  so  he  asserted  himself  against  Pelham. 
Newcastle  and  Hardwicke  were  opposed  to  having 
a  first  minister  at  all.  Carteret  was  an  opposition 
candidate  for  the  position.  Without  the  Parliamentary 
leadership  which  Walpole  had  recognized  as  the  only 
justification  for  Cabinet  leadership,  he  attempted  to  fill 
the  same  place  in  the  Cabinet  which  Walpole  had  filled, 
or  an  even  more  arbitrary  one.  Trusting  to  his  favor 
with  the  King,  he  treated  the  other  ministers  as  mere 
ciphers.  "  Give  any  man  the  Crown  on  his  side,"  he  was 
accustomed  to  say,  "  and  he  can  defy  everything/^  When 
Chesterfield  made  an  attack  upon  him  in  Parliament  in 
December,  1 743,  he  spoke  of  hiip  as  "  the  minister." 
And  Pitt  styled  him  "  an  execrable,  a  sole  minister."  ^ 

1  Coxe,  "  Pelham  Administration,"  Vol.  I.  p.  205. 
"^  Yorke,  "  Parliamentary  Journal. " 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF   THE   CABINET     229 

The  circumstances  under  which  Carteret  retired  from 
the  Cabinet  in  1 744  have  already  been  recounted.^  From 
that  time  until  his  death  in  1754,  Henry  Pelham  may  be^ 
considered  as  first  minister.  It  is  during  this  administra- 
tion that  we  find  the  earliest  use  of  the  word  Premier  as 
a  noun  to  denote  the  head  of  the  government.  It  was 
the  Duke  of  Cumberland  who  first  made  use  of  it.  The 
King  wished  Pitt,  then  Paymaster  General,  to  move  the 
Parliamentary  grant  to  Cumberland  as  victor  of  Culloden. 
Cumberland  wrote  to  Newcastle,  "  I  should  be  much  bet- 
ter pleased  if  the  Premier  moved  it,  both  as  a  friend  and 
on  account  of  his  weight.  I  am  fully  convinced  of  the 
Premier's  good  will  to  me."^  Yet  Pelham  was  never  de- 
cidedly first  minister.  The  Pelham  administration  was  a 
triangular  arrangement,  the  power  being  divided  between 
Pelham,  Newcastle,  and  Hardwicke.  A  very  slight  pre- 
eminence was  given  to  Pelham. 

If  Pelham  was  not  able  to  hold  Sir  Robert's  position,  still 
less  so  was  his  brother  Newcastle.  Throughout  his  admin- 
istration he  was  treated  by  his  colleagues  with  contempt. 

While  the  great  Pitt  ministry  was  in  power,  though 
we  have  forgotten  Newcastle,  yet   Pitt   and   Newcastle 

1  See  pp.  162-163. 

2  Coxe,  "  Pelham  Administration,"  Vol.  I.  p.  486.  Yet  in  John- 
son's Dictionary,  published  in  1755,  Premier  is  given  only  as  an 
adjective.  The  Duchess  of  Marlborough  in  her  correspondence 
speaks  frequently  of  the  Premier  Minister  —  never  of  the  Premier. 


I 


230       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

were  to  a  certain  extent  coordinate  ministers.  New- 
castle was  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury.  It  was  he  who 
bestowed  places  and  pensions,  and  who  bribed  members 
of  Parliament.     Pitt  was  Secretary  of  State.     It  was  he 

Twho  directed  the  war  and  foreign  affairs.  Neither 
minister  was  inclined  to  intrude  upon  the  province  of  the 
other.  In  time,  however,  all  eyes  were  directed  to  Pitt. 
Newcastle's   existence   was   forgotten,  except   by   those 

/  who  were  looking  for  places. 

During  this  period  it  became  customary  to  give  the 
Prime  Minister  more  or  less  power  to  form  his  own  ad- 
ministration. But  it  was  with  the  understanding  that  he 
was  to  make  as  few  changes  as  possible,  and  secure  a 
working  Cabinet.  On  the  accession  of  George  I.  there 
was,  for  the  first  time,  a  full  change  in  the  ministry. 
But  this  was  because  of  the  wishes  of  the  King,  not  be- 
cause of  the  wishes  of  Parliament.  At  the  time  of  the 
fall  of  Walpole,  Newcastle  said  to  Pulteney,  "The  King 
trusts  you  will  not  distress  the  government  by  making 
too  many  changes  in  the  midst  of  a  session  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  that  you  and  your  friends  will  be  satisfied  with 
the  removal  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  and  a  few  others." 
Pulteney  replied  that  he  would  be  content  if  he  had  the 
"  main  forts  of  government."  We  have  seen  that  when, 
in  1746,  the  other  ministers  began  to  resign  with  their 
chief,  it  was  regarded  with  great  consternation.  This 
would  now,  of  course,  be  considered  the  only  proper  thing 
for  subordinate  ministers  to  do. 


INTERNAL   RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET     23 1 

That  each  member  of  the  Cabinet  had  a  right  to  be 
consulted  on  all  public  affairs  was  still  not  fully  recog- 
nized. As  Cabinet  meetings  were  no  longer  held  at 
fixed  times,  it  was  easier  to  leave  certain  ministers  out  of 
the  deliberations.  Thus  Marlborough,  although  a  mem- 
ber of  the  first  Cabinet  of  George  I.,  was  scarcely  ever 
invited  to  attend  Cabinet  meetings,  and  "was  confined 
to  the  most  ordinary  routine  of  official  functions,  being 
unable  to  obtain  even  a  lieutenantcy  for  a  friend."^ 
On  matters  requiring  great  secrecy,  only  a  few 
members  of  the  Cabinet  were  consulted,  sometimes  not 
more  than  one  or  two.  Thus,  while  at  The  Hague, 
Stephen  Poyntz  was  commissioned  by  Townshend  to  hold 
private  correspondence  with  Stanhope,  to  be  communi- 
cated only  to  the  King.^  While  Sir  Luke  Schaub  was  in 
Paris,  his  instructions  were  direct  from  Carteret  as 
Secretary  of  State,  not,  as  they  would  be  now,  submitted 
to  the  Cabinet  for  approval.  During  the  Walpole  ad- 
ministration, almost  all  matters  of  importance  were  dis- 
cussed first  in  an  informal  interior  Cabinet,  consisting 
of  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  the  Chancellor,  and 
the  two  Secretaries  of  State:^     If  it  seemed  desirable, 

1  Mahon,  "  History  of  England,"  Vol.  I.  p.  153. 

2  Poyntz  to  Stanhope,  July  23,  1716.  '  Coxe,  "Walpole." 

8  Count  Broglio  wrote  to  the  King  of  France,  "  The  more  I  study 
matters,  the  more  I  am  convinced  that  the  government  is  entirely 
in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Walpole,  Lord  Townshend,  and  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle  who  are  on  the  best  terms  with  the  Duchess  of  Kendal. 


232       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Other  ministers  were  consulted  later.  Walpole  met  the 
whole  Cabinet  just  as  little  as  possible.  He  was  in  the 
habit  of  inviting  two  or  three  colleagues  to  dinner  to  talk 
over  affairs  of  state  with  him.  These  informal  dinners 
had  an  advantage  in  addition  to  that  of  excluding  objec- 
tionable ministers.  It  was  not  necessary  to  send  a  minute 
of  such  a  meeting  to  the  King. 

In  1 741  the  King  entered  into  negotiations  for  the 
neutrality  of  Hanover  without  consulting  any  of  the 
English  ministers.  Even  Walpole  was  not  informed 
until  the  conditions  were  arranged,  when  it  was  an- 
nounced  in  private  letters  from  the  King.  He  opened 
these  letters  in  the  presence  of  Newcastle  without  im- 
parting their  contents.^  An  official  account  of  the 
negotiations  was  afterward  sent  by  Lord  Harrington 
from  Hanover  to  the  other  ministers.  During  the 
Carteret-Pelham  administration,  Carteret  withheld  in- 
formation from  the  Pelhams  whenever  it  was  possible, 
and  never  consulted  them  except  when  it  was  impossible 
to  avoid  such  consultations.     Under  Pelham,  there  was 

The  King  visits  her  every  afternoon  from  five  to  eight.  It  is  there 
that  she  endeavors  to  penetrate  the  secrets  of  his  Britannic  Majesty 
for  the  purpose  of  consulting  the  three  ministers  and  pursuing  the 
measures  which  may  be  thought  necessary  for  accomplishing  their 
design."  —  CoxE,  "  Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  304. 

1  Coxe,  "  Walpole."  A  partial  excuse  was  offered  for  this  on 
the  ground  that  the  King  was  acting  in  his  capacity  as  Elector  of 
Hanover,  not  as  King  of  England. 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET    233 

an  interior  Cabinet  consisting  of  the  Pelham  brothers 
and  the  Chancellor.^  Pitt  often  withheld  information 
from  his  colleagues.  It  is  said  that  when  Lord  Anson 
was  at  the  head  of  the  Admiralty,  he  made  him  sign 
admiralty  despatches  without  knowing  their  contents. 

Throughout  this  period,  Cabinet  ministers  were  chosen 
exclusively  from  the  ranks  of  the  Whigs.     But  as  all  the  | 
various  Whig  factions  were  represented  in  the  ministry,  \ 
the   unanimity   now   considered    essential    to   efficiency  ■ 
was  lacking.     We  have  seen  Sunderland  and  Stanhope 
intriguing  against  Townshend,  Carteret  against  Walpole, 
and  later  against  the  Pelhams,  Pitt  and  Fox  joining  in 
a  Parliamentary  attack  upon  Sir  Thomas  Robinson.    Nor 
was  it  considered  altogether  incongruous  that  a  minister 
should   be  a  member  of  a  Cabinet  to  whose  principaP"" 
measures   he   was   opposed.      In    1719    the   Stanhope- 
Sunderland   administration   brought   forward   a   bill   for 
limiting  the  numbers  of  the  peerage.     It  was  defeated, 
and  defeated  chiefly  through  the  efforts  of  Walpole,  who 
was  then  in  opposition.     Soon  afterward  Walpole  joineci 
the  government.     That  is,  instead  of  this  ministry  going  ' 
out  of  office,  it  strengthened  itself  by  taking  to  itself  , 
its   principal   opponent,  and  that   too,  though   he   had 

1  Newcastle  writes  to  Hardwicke  that  he  "  can't  go  on,  unless 
the  world  understands  that  you,  my  brother,  and  I  are  one,  not  in 
thought  only,  but  in  action;  not  in  action  only,  but  in  the  first  con- 
ception and  digestion  of  things." 


234       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

not  changed  his  views.  Moreover,  although  Walpole 
had  at  a  very  early  stage  exposed  the  fallacy  upon  which 
the  South  Sea  scheme  rested,  he  remained  a  member 
of  the  Cabinet  which  supported  it. 

In  1736  Walpole,  as  Prime  Minister,  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Commons  a  bill  to  relieve  Quakers  from 
the  payment  of  tithes.  It  was  passed  in  the  Common^ 
but  was  thrown  out  in  the  Lords.  And  it  was  throw^ 
out  largely  because  of  the  opposition  of  Lord  Chief 
Justice  Talbot  and  Lord  Chancellor  Hardwicke,  al- 
though Hardwicke  had  been  raised  to  a  peerage  espe- 
cially for  the   purpose   of  assisting  the  ministry  in  the 

• 
Upper  House.  Whe^,  in  1753,  Hardwicke,  still  Chan- 
cellor, introduced  a/  Marriage  Bill  into  Parliament,  it 
was  to  find  himself /exposed  to  the  ridicule  of  his  col- 
leagues. Fox,  who /was  Secretary  at  War,  was  his  princi; 
pal  opponent.  He  spoke  against  both  the  matter  and 
the  manner  of  the  bill,  —  insisted  that  it  was  intolerably 
rigorous  and  carelessly  framed ;  that  the  ministers  them- 
selves had  amended  it,  until  its  own  father  would  not 
know  it.  He  flourished  a  copy,  in  which  the  alterations 
in  red  ink  were  very  conspicuous.  "  Plow  bloody  it 
looks  ! "  said  the  Sohcitor  General.  "  Yes,"  answered 
Fox,  "  but  thou  canst  not  say  I  did  it.  See  what  a  rent 
the  learned  Casca  made  "  (Solicitor  General).  " Through 
this  the  well-beloved  Brutus  stabbed"  (Pelham).  He 
also  took  occasion  to  declaim  against  the  lawyers  and 


INTERNAL   RELATIONS   OF   THE  CABINET     235 

the  pride  of  their  Mufti  (Hardwicke).  He  afterward 
made  a  slight  attempt  at  apology,  with  some  remarks 
complimentary  to  the  Chancellor.  When  the  bill  came 
back  to  the  Lords,  Hardwicke  indulged  in  a  bitter 
phihppic  against  Fox.  He  spoke  of  him  as  a  "dark 
and  insidious  genius,  the  engine  of  personality  and 
faction."  "  For  my  part,"  he  exclaimed,  "  I  despise  the 
invective,  I  despise  the  apology,  and  I  reject  the  adu- 
lation ! "  Fox  regretted  that  the  session  was  not  to 
continue  a  fortnight  longer,  in  order  that  he  might  repay 
his  colleague  in  his  own  coin.^ 

Yet  there  was  all  the  time  a  growing  feeling  that 
there  should  be  more  unanimity  in  the  government. 
Very  early  in  his  career  Walpole  recognized  the  value 
of  a  united  administration.  When,  under  Anne,  the 
Whigs  made  their  famous  attack  upon  the  Board  of 
Admiralty,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  he  defended  it. 
When  he  was  accused  of  speaking  against  some  of  his 
own  party,  he  said  that  he  could  never  be  so  mean  as 
to  sit  at  a  Board  and  not  defend  it.  When,  in  171 7, 
he  could  not  agree  with  his  colleagues  as  to  the  advisa- 
bility of  granting  the  King  a  supply  against  Sweden, 
he  resigned.  The  King  was  so  opposed  to  his  resigna- 
tion that  he  handed  him  back  the  seals  no  less  than 
ten  times.  What  would  now  be  considered  a  plain  duty 
was  then  regarded  almost  as  a  criminal  defection. 

1  Trevelyan,  "Early  Life  of  Charles  James  Fox,"  pp.  13-15. 


236       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

As  Prime  Minister,  Walpole  insisted  upon  unanimity 
as  none  of  his  predecessors  had  done.  As  he  was 
more  severe  in  enforcing  discipline  in  Parliament  than 
in  the  country,  so  he  was  more  rigorous  in  his  disci- 
pline in  Cabinet  and  administration  than  in  Parliament. 
Whenever  it  was  possible,  he  dismissed  refractory  min- 
isters. We  have  seen  how  he  dealt  with  Carteret.  Soon 
after  he  had  got  rid  of  him,  a  bill  was  passed  levying 
/  a  tax  on  ale  in  Scotland.  As  a  consequence,  there  were 
f  disturbances  in  that  country.  The  Duke  of  Roxburgh, 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  Scotland,  did  his  best  to  help 
on  these  disturbances.  Walpole  wrote  to  Townshend, 
"  I  beg  leave  to  observe  that  the  present  administration 
is  the  first  that  ever  yet  was  known  to  be  answerable 
for  the  whole  government  with  a  Secretary  of  State  for 
one  part  of  the  kingdom,  who,  they  are  assured,  acts 
counter  to  all  their  measures,  or,  at  least,  whom  they 
cannot  in  the  least  confide  in."  ^  Soon  afterward,  Rox- 
burgh was  dismissed. 
•T««iii  Out  of  deference  to  the  wishes  of  at  least  a  large 
minority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  a  large  ma- 
jority in  the  country,  Walpole  withdrew  his  Excise  Bill. 
But  none  the  less  for  that  did  he  discipline  the  mem-, 
bers  of  the  Cabinet  and  other  prominent  officials  who 
had  opposed  it.  Chesterfield,  who  was  Lord  Steward 
at  the  time,  had  expressed  his  disapproval  of  the  bill, 

1  Coxe,  "Walpole,"  Vol.  II.  p.  474. 


INTERNAL   RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET     237 

and  his  brothers  had  voted  against  it  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  He  was  dismissed,  as  were  also  Lord  CHnton, 
Lord  of  the  Bedchamber,  the  Earl  of  BurHngton,  Captain 
of  the  Board  of  Pensioners,  the  Duke  of  Montrose,  the 
Earl  of  Marchmont,  and  the  Earl  of  Stair,  all  of  whom 
held  office  in  Scotland.  The  Duke  of  Bolton  and  Lord 
Cobham  were  deprived  of  their  regiments.  Yet  Walpole 
thought  it  necessary  to  deny  that  any  servant  of  the 
Crown  had  been  removed  from  office  on  account  of 
having  opposed  measures  of  the  administration.  "Cer- 
tain persons,"  he  said,  "  had  been  removed  because  his 
Majesty  did  not  think  best._ta.  continue  them  longer  in 
service.  His  Majesty  has  a  right  so  to  do,  and  I  know 
of  no  one  who  has  a  right  to  ask  him,  What  doest  thou? 
If  his  Majesty  had  a  mind  that  the  favors  of  the  Crown 
should  circulate,  would  not  this  of  itself  be  a  good  rea- 
son for  removing  any  of  his  servants?  ...  I  cannot 
see,  therefore,  how  this  can  be  imputed  as  a  crime,  or 
how  any  of  the  King's  ministers  can  be  blamed, /d?r  his 
doing  what  the  public  has  no  concern  in,  for  if  the  pub- 
lic be  well  and  faithfully  served,  it  has  no  business  to 
ask  by  whotnP 

At  another  time  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  Cabinet  as  to  an  application  to  be  made  to  certain 
foreign  courts.  Walpole  was  overruled.  He  complained 
to  the  King  that  business  was  stopped,  on  account  of 
the  differences  in  the  Cabinet.     The  King  sent  for  New- 


238       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

castle  and  reproved  him.  "As  to  business  in  Parlia- 
ment," he  said,  "  I  do  not  value  the  opposition,  if  all 
my  servants  act  together  and  are  united ;  but  if  they 
thwart  one  another,  and  create  difficulties  in  the  trans- 
action of  public  business,  then  indeed  it  will  be  another 
case."  Later,  Newcastle  met  Walpole,  and  charged  him 
with  having  directed  the  King  to  say  this.  Walpole 
denied  it,  but  said  that  he  agreed  with  the  sentiments. 
Toward  the  close  of  his  administration,  Walpole  was 
unable  to  control  his  Cabinet.^     His  fall  was  due  almost 

1  In  1 739,  when  Walpole  was  doing  all  that  he  could  to  prevent 
war  with  Spain,  Newcastle  and  Hardwicke  were  both  in  favor  of 
such  a  war.  Newcastle  did  what  he  could  to  raise  factions  in  the 
Cabinet.  Yet  Walpole  dared  not  dismiss  him.  At  one  time  New- 
castle wished  to  send  all  the  ships  that  could  be  spared  from  the 
fleet  to  strengthen  the  squadron  of  Vernon  and  Ogle.  Walpole 
objected  and  exclaimed :  "  I  oppose  nothing.  I  give  in  to  every- 
thing, am  said  to  do  everything,  am  to  answer  for  everything,  and 
yet  God  knows  I  dare  not  do  what  I  think  right.  I  am  of  the 
opinion  for  having  more  ships  of  Sir  Chaloner  Ogle's  squadron 
behind,  but  I  dare  not.  I  will  not  make  any  alterations."  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  proposed  that  the  matter  be  reconsid- 
ered. Walpole  opposed  reconsideration,  and  said,  "  Let  them  go, 
let  them  go  !  "  — "  Hardwicke  Papers,"  Newcastle  to  Hardwicke, 
October  i,  1740. 

Lord  Hervey  gives  us  the  following  scene  at  the  end  of  a  long 
meeting  of  Cabinet :  "  Just  as  Sir  Robert  Walpole  was  upon  his 
legs  to  go  away,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  said,  *  If  you  please,  I 
would  speak  one  word  with  you  before  you  go.'  To  which  Sir 
Robert  Walpole  replied,  *  I  do  not  please,  my  lord ;  but  if  you 
will,  you  must.'     *  Sir,  I  shall  not  trouble  you  long.'     *  Well,  my 


INTERNAL  RELATIONS   OF   THE    CABINET     239 

as  much  to  the  opposition  of  his  colleagues,  as  to  op- 
position in  the  House  of  Commons.  In  his  resignation 
he  was  true  to  his  principles.  So  long  as  it  was  pos- 
sible to  maintain  discipline  in  the  administration,  he 
maintained  it.  When  this  was  no  longer  possible,  he 
resigned. 

During  the  Pelham  administration,  there  was  a  curious 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Cabinet  to  act  as  a  court  of 
justice.  A  certain  person  stated  that  he  had  seen  a 
bishop,  the  Solicitor  General,  and  another  person  drink 
to  the  health  of  the  Pretender.  He  was  summoned  be- 
fore the  Cabinet  and  examined  under  oath.  The  other 
side  of  the  question  was  also  heard,  and  a  report  of  the 
examination  was  submitted  to  the  King.  There  was  a 
debate  upon  this  proceeding  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
The  action  of  the  Cabinet  was  denounced  as  a  revival  of 
the  Star  Chamber  and  the  Inquisition,  and  an  attempt  to 
establish  a  new  jurisdiction.^  Since  that  time  there  has 
been  no  similar  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Cabinet. 

lord,  that's  something;  but  I  had  rather  not  be  troubled  at  all. 
Won't  it  keep  cold  until  to-morrow  ? '  *  Perhaps  not,  sir.'  *  Well, 
come  then,  let's  have  it.'  Upon  which  they  retired  to  a  corner  of 
the  room,  where  his  Grace  whispered  very  softly,  and  Sir  Robert 
answered  nothing  but  aloud,  and  said  nothing  aloud  but  every 
now  and  then,  *  Pooh  !  Pshaw  !  O  Lord  !  O  Lord  !  pray  be  quiet. 
My  God,  can't  you  see  it  is  over? ' "  —  Hervey,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  II. 

p.  564. 

1  "  Pelham  Administration,"  Vol.  III.  pp.  254-263. 


CHAPTER   IX 

LATER    CABINET   DEVELOPMENT 

Attempt  of  George  III.  to  rule  as  well  as  reign  —  No  change  in 
legal  position  of  sovereign  since  William  III.  —  The  people  in 
the  main  with  George  III.  —  Exclusion  of  the  Tories  from 
power  considered  unjust  —  Bolingbroke's  "  Patriot  King  "  — 
"  Seasonable  Hints  from  an  Honest  Man  "  —  General  plans  of 
.  George  III.  —  His  first  speech  to  Parliament  —  Pitt  leaves  the 
Cabinet  —  Lord  Bute  real  Prime  Minister  —  Newcastle  resigns 
—  Administration  of  Bute  —  His  resignation  —  Letter  of  Bute  to 
Bedford  —  Administration  of  Grenville  —  The  King  tries  in  vain 
to  get  rid  of  him  —  Bute  banished  from  Court  —  The  King 
attempts  to  govern^  in  spite  of  his  ministry  —  The  first  Rocking- 
ham administration  —  Dissensions  in  the  ministry  —  Opposition 
of  the  Court  —  Resignation  of  Rockingham  —  Chatham  admin- 
istration—  Dissensions  and  weakness  —  Illness  of  Chatham  — 
Formation  of  an  opposition  to  the  Court  —  The  country  is 
roused  —  Administration  of  North  —  Temporary  triumph  of 
King,  but  as  King  of  party  —  Parliamentary  reporting  —  Oppo- 
sition of  country  to  ministry  —  Its  fall  —  Second  Rockingham 
administration  —  Disfranchisement  of  revenue  officers,  and 
Economical  Reform  Act  —  Shelburne  administration  —  Coali- 
tion ministry  —  Opposition  of  the  King  and  the  country  —  The 
India  Bill  —  Fall  of  the  Coalition  —  Appointment  of  Pitt — The 
opposition  opposes  dissolution  —  Discussion  in  Parliament  for 
240 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  24 1 

three  months  —  The  country  decides  in  favor  of  Pitt  —  Victory 
of  the  people  over  the  nobles,  and  over  the  Crown  —  Pitt  builds 
up  ministerial  authority  —  His  fall  in  1801 — Administration  of 
Addington  —  Second  Pitt  administration  —  The  ministry  of  "  All 
the  Talents  " — The  King  requires  a  pledge  from  it  —  The  minis- 
try refuses  and  resigns  —  Parliamentary  debate  on  the  subject  of 
pledges  —  Ministerial  arrangements  at  beginning  of  the  Regency 
—  The  Queen's  trial — Catholic  emancipation  —  The  Reform 
Act  —  William  IV.  finds  himself  unable  to  turn  out  the  Mel- 
bourne ministry  in  1834 — The  Bedchamber  Question  —  Queen 
Victoria's  memorandum  to  Lord  Palmerston  —  Pitt  on  the 
office  of  Prime  Minister  —  Cabinet  ministers  changed  simultane- 
ously —  Unanimity  in  the  Cabinet  —  Personalia  of  the  Cabinet. 

PROBABLY  by  the  close  of  the  administration  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole,  certainly  by  the^eath  of  George 
IL,  the  general  trend  of  Cabinet  development  had  been  ^ 
pretty  well  indicated.  There  was  to  be  a  Prime  Minis- 
ter, who  was  practically  to  take  the  place  of  the  King. 
He  was  to  be  the  leader  of  the  party  in  power  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  was  to  be  dependent  upon  a 
Parliamentary  majority,  rather  than  upon  royal  favor. 
He  was  to  preside  over  a  Cabinet,  composed  of  men  of 
the  same  party,  who  were  prepared  to  act  as  a  unit  under 
him.  That  is,  the  proper  authority  of  Parliament  was 
recognized,  and  the  machinery  by  means  of  which  it  was 
to  exercise  that  authority  was  determined.  Nothing 
was  wanting  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  Parliamentary 
government  but  an  improved  condition  of  Parliament 
itself.      It  remains   to   consider   an   attempt   made   by 


242       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

George  III.  to  undo  what  had  been  done,  to  restore  the 
royal  prerogative,  to  break  down  Cabinet  government, 
and  its  necessary  condition,  party  government. 

Many  things  combined  to  favor  this  attempt.  In  the 
first  place,  while  the  actual  powers  of  the  monarch  had 
been  constantly  declining,  there  had  been  no  change  in 
the  letter  of  the  law.  The  new  King  might  well  have 
argued  that  the  diminution  of  the  royal  power  had  been 
due  to  the  personal  weakness  of  his  immediate  predeces- 
jsors,  but  that  a  sovereign  strong  enough  to  rule  as  well  as 
fto  reign  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  The  "  Commen- 
taries "  of  Blackstone  were  not  pubHshed  until  some  time 
after  his  accession,  but  while  he  was  still  Prince  of  Wales, 
Lord  Bute  had  obtained  portions  of  them  in  manuscript 
for  his  instruction.^  From  these  he  learned  that  "  The 
King  of  England  is  not  only  the  chief,  but  properly  the 
sole  magistrate  of  the  nation,  all  others  acting  by  com- 
mission from  him  and  in  due  subordination  to  him.  .  .  . 
He  may  reject  what  bills,  may  make  what  treaties,  may 
pardon  what  offences,  he  pleases,  unless  when  the 
Constitution  hath  expressly,  or  by  evident  conse- 
quences, laid  down  some  exception  or  boundary.  .  .  . 
He  has  the  sole  power  of  regulating  fleets  and  armies, 
of  manning  all  forts  and  other  places  of  strength 
within  the  realm,  of  making  war  and  peace,  of  con- 
ferring honors,  offices,  and  privileges.     He  governs  the 

1  Adolphus,  "History  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  12. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  243 

kingdom.     Statesmen,  who   administer  affairs,  are  only 
his  ministers."^ 

In  the  second  place,  the  people  were  in  the  main 
with  the  King.  Both  Whig  and  Tory  supported  the 
new  monarch.  Formerly  the  Hanoverian  had  been  the 
foreign  king.  Now  it  was  the  Pretender  who  was  the  for- 
eigner. By  birth,  education,  and  sympathies  George  III. 
was  an  Englishman.  The  sentiment  of  religious  loyalty 
which,  under  the  first  two  kings  of  the  House  of  Han- 
over, had  almost  ceased  to  support  the  Crown,  returned 
to  some  extent  with  the  accession  of  a  real  EngHsh  king. 
It  was  perhaps  felt  that  the  family  had  been  estabHshed 
long  enough  to  have  attained  to  a  little  divine  right. 
The  new  system  had  been  only  an  expedient,  —  an  ex- 
pedient which  had  been  rendered  necessary  by  the  in- 
efficiency of  the  foreign  rulers,  and  the  dangers  which 
surrounded  a  disputed  succession.  But  expediency, 
though  it  may  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  a  man  like 
Burke,  who  is  able  to  exalt  it  into  a  philosophy,  never 
appeals  to  the  people  except  as  a  necessary  evil.  It 
is  for  an  idea  that  they  are  willing  to  sacrifice  every- 
thing. This  idea  royalty  suppHes.  A  monarch  is  the 
historical  symbol  of  the  emotional  ideals  of  a  nation. 
George  III.  appealed  to  the  loyalty  of  the  people,  as 
the  representative  of  the  national  unity  and  dignity. 
As  for  the  Prime  Minister,  he  was  not  very  intelligible 
1  Blackstone,  Book  I.  Ch.  VII. 


t 


244       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

to  them.  They  at  least  had  not  chosen  him,  nor  was 
it  quite  clear  to  them  how  he  had  been  chosen.  And 
when  the  people  had  not  chosen  him,  and  the  sover- 
eign was  opposed  to  him,  the  situation  was  at  least 
peculiar. 

Nor  did  the  people  feel  that  they  had  gained  much 
by  the  substitution  of  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the 

(authority  of  the  King.     They  were  learning  that  a  Par- 
liament which  represented  them  so  inadequately  might 
I       be  just   as   much  a  tyrant  as   a   monarch.     As   Burke 
^       put  it  the  "  distempers  of  monarchy  were  the  great  sub- 
jjects   of  apprehension   and  redress  in  the  seventeenth 
"    /  century :   in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  distempers  of 
Parliaments." 

The  new  system  had  been  rendered  possible  only  by 
the  long  exclusion  of  the  Tories  from  power.  The  King 
had  been  both  the  prot^g^  and  the  prisoner  of  the  great 
Whig  families.  He  was  entirely  in  their  hands.  For 
he  had  alienated  the  other  party  by  assuming  that  they 
were  all  rebels.  If,  therefore,  he  wished  to  change  his 
counsellors,  he  could  only  turn  to  another  section  of 
the  Whigs,  and  this  the  Whigs  might  render  impossible 
by  effacing  sectional  divisions  in  their  ranks.  There 
had  always  been  a  feeling  that  the  exclusive  employ- 
ment of  one  party  was  an  injustice,  and  this  feehng  had 
gathered  strength  with  the  years.  The  exclusion  of  the 
Tories  had  been  a  makeshift  at  best.     It  had  originally 


!/ 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  245 

been  justified  by  the  Jacobitism  of  their  party,  but  that 
excuse  no  longer  existed.  There  had,  therefore,  been 
a  tendency  for  some  time,  and  that  on  the  part  of  the 
abler  statesmen,  to  give  them  what  was  considered  their 
legitimate  share  in  the  government.  After  the  fall  of 
Walpole,  it  was  hoped  by  many  that  Carteret  and  Pul- 
teney  would  form  a  mixed  government.  But  these 
statesmen  did  not  deem  it  practical  to  give  Cabinet 
positions  to  men  whose  poHtical  principles  were  opposed 
to  their  own.  A  little  later  Pitt  came  into  office  as  the 
darling  of  the  people,  not  of  the  Whig  party.  Horace 
Walpole  speaks  of  his  "known  design  of  uniting,  that 
is,  of  breaking  all  parties."^  Although  he  was  not  able 
to  give  the  Tories  any  of  the  higher  offices  of  govern- 
ment, he  gave  them  a  number  of  inferior  offices.  For 
the  first  time  since  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Han- 
over, members  of  the  Consei-vative  party  displayed  a  real 
enthusiasm  in  politics.  "The  country  gentlemen  de- 
serted their  hounds  and  their  horses,  preferring  for  once 
their  Parliamentary  duty,  and  displayed  their  banner  for 
Pitt."  2 

During  the  reign  of  George  II.,  in  words  which  would 
almost  seem  to  have  suggested  the  policy  of  his  grand- 
son, Bolingbroke  had  pictured  a  "Patriot  King,"  who 
should  "begin  to  rule  as  soon  as  he  began  to  reign," 

1  Walpole,  "  Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  15. 

2  Glover,  "  Memoirs,"  p.  97. 


246       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

who  should  "  espouse  no  party,  but  govern  like  the  com- 
mon father  of  his  people,"  who  "  instead  of  putting  him- 
self at  the  head  of  one  party  in  order  to  govern  his 
people,  will  put  himself  at  the  head  of  his  people,  in 
order  to  govern,  or  more  properly  to  subdue  all 
parties."^  In  1761  a  pamphlet  appeared  called  "Sea- 
sonable Hints  from  an  Honest  Man  on  the  New  Reign 
and  the  New  Parliament."  The  author,  who  was  be- 
lieved by  many  to  be  Lord  Bath,  called  upon  the  new 
sovereign  to  consider  "  whether  he  was  to  content  him- 
self with  the  shadow  of  royalty,  while  a  set  of  undertakers 
for  his  business  intercepted  his  immediate  communica- 
tion with  his  people,  and  made  use  of  the  legal  preroga- 
tive of  their  master,  to  establish  the  illegal  claims  of  a 
factious  oligarchy."  He  complained  that  "a  cabal  of 
ministers  had  been  allowed  to  erect  themselves  into  a 
fourth  estate,  to  check,  to  control,  to  influence,  nay,  to 
enslave  the  others,"  —  that  it  had  become  usual  "  to 
urge  the  necessity  of  the  King  submitting  to  give  up  the 
management  of  his  affairs,  and  the  exclusive  disposal 
of  all  his  employment,  to  some  ministers,  or  set  of  min- 
isters, who,  by  uniting  together,  and  backed  by  their 
numerous  dependents,  may  be  able  to  carry  on  the  gov- 
ernment," that  "ministerial  combinations  to  engross 
power  and  to  invade  the  closet,  were  nothing  less  than 
a  '■  scheme  of  putting  the  sovereign  in  leading  strings,' " 

1  Bolingbroke,  "  On  the  Idea  of  a  Patriot  King." 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  247 

and  that  their  result  had  been  the  "  monstrous  corrup- 
tion of  Parliament,  and  the  strange  spectacle  of  a  King 
of  England,  unable  to  confer  the  smallest  employment, 
unless  on  the  recommendation,  and  with  the  consent,  of 
the  ministers."  He  exhorted  the  King  to  pursue  such 
a  course  as  would  attain  to  "  the  true  ideal  of  the  Con- 
stitution —  in  which  the  ministers  will  depend  on  the 
Crown,  not  the  Crown  on  the  ministers."  ^ 

With  the  letter  of  the  law^  the  sentiment  of  the  people, 
and  of  many  of  the  statesmen  thus  with  him,  the  King 
might  easily  have  argued  that  both  right  and  might  were 
on  his  side. 

He  saw  clearly  that  the  best  way  to  destroy  Parlia- 
mentary government  was  to  break  down  party  organiza- 
tion, —  to  reduce  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  position 
of  a  heterogeneous  national  council.  For  it  is  only 
through  organization  that  this  House  can  exercise  its» 
most  important  function,  —  its  elective  function,  —  or 
that  it  can  support  and  maintain  an  administration  after 
it  has  been  elected.  No  government  could  depend  for 
its  existence  upon  the  isolated  judgment  of  six  hundred 
individuals.     Nor  did  it  seem  as  though  the  breaking 

1  Even  Burke  had  probably  sympathized  at  first  with  the  demand 
for  the  abolition  of  party  rule.  In  the  "Annual  Register  "  for  1762, 
p.  47,  we  read,  "  From  the  beginning  of  this  reign,  it  had  been  pro- 
fessed with  the  general  applause  of  all  good  men  to  abolish  those 
odious  distinctions  (Whig  and  Tory),  and  to  extend  the  royal  favors 
and  protection  equally  to  all  his  Majesty's  subjects." 


\   \  B  R  A  w"^<*. 


248       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

down  of  party  organization  would  be  a  difficult  task. 
For  the  parties  of  that  day  were  "strong  by  alliances, 
rather  than  by  union."  The  eighteenth-century  party 
was,  like  the  feudal  army,  made  up  of  the  aggregations 
of  the  followers  of  various  leaders.  It  was,  therefore, 
like  the  feudal  army,  easily  dismembered.^  But  further, 
the  King's  aim  was  to  "  so  disunite  every  party,  and 
even  section  of  a  party,  so  that  no  concert,  order,  or 
effect  could  appear  in  any  future  opposition."^  And 
for  this  he  was  admirably  fitted  by  nature,  for,  as  Shel- 
burne  said  of  him,  "  he  possessed  one  art  beyond  that 
of  any  man  whom  he  had  yet  known  :  for  that  by  the  famil- 
iarity of  his  intercourse,  he  obtained  your  confidence,  and 
then  availed  himself  of  this  knowledge  to  sow  dissension."^ 
The  patronage  of  the  Crown,  which  for  a  long  time 
had  been  for  the  most  part  at  the  disposal  of  the  min- 
ister, and  had  been  used  by  him  to  maintain  his  major- 

1  An  analysis  of  the  House  of  Commons  dated  May  i,  1788,  has 
been  recently  discovered  among  the  papers  of  one  of  the  younger 
Pitt's  private  secretaries.  In  it  the  "  party  of  the  Crown "  is  esti- 
mated at  185  members.  This  party  includes  "all  those  who  would 
probably  support  his  Majesty's  government  under  any  minister  not 
peculiarly  unpopular."  The  independent  or  unconnected  members 
were  reckoned  at  108.  Fox's  party  was  reckoned  at  138,  and  Pitt's 
at  52,  and  "  of  this  party,  if  there  were  a  new  Parliament,  and  Mr. 
Pitt  were  no  longer  to  continue  minister,  not  above  twenty  would 
be  returned."     Rosebery,  "  Life  of  Pitt,"  pp.  78-79. 

2  Burke,  "  Causes  of  the  Present  Discontents." 

8  Nicholls,  "  Recollections  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  389. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  249 

ities,  George  III.  took  into  his  own  hands.  He  used 
it  to  build  up  in  Parliament  a  party  that  might  be 
counted  upon  to  give  an  unvarying  support  to  the  Crown, 
with  the  ministry  if  it  might  be,  against  the  ministry  if  it 
must  be.  With  the  aid  of  this  body  it  would,  he  hoped, 
be  easy  to  overthrow  any  objectionable  administration. 
Hitherto  there  had  been  a  party  of  minister's  friends, 
varying  somewhat  with  the  minister,  held  together 
partly  by  patronage,  and  partly  by  the  disposition  of 
certain  natures  invariably  to  support  the  party  in  power. 
There  was  now  to  be  a  party  of  King's  friends. 

The  young  King  lost  no  time  in  making  it  evident 
that  he  intended  to  follow  Bolingbroke's  advice,  —  to 
begin  to  govern  as  soon  as  he  began  to  reign.  It  is 
true  that,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  there  was  no 
attempt  at  the  accession  of  the  new  sovereign  to  make 
immediate  changes  in  the  administration.  But  the  first 
draft  of  the  King's  first  speech  to  Parliament  was  drawn 
up  by  himself  and  his  favorite,  Lord  Bute,  without  con- 
sulting any  member  of  the  Cabinet.  It  was  with  diffi- 
culty that  Pitt  induced  him  even  to  change  certain 
obnoxious  expressions. 

It  was  now  the  object  of  the  Court  to  get  rid  of  the 
existing  ministry,  and  to  replace  it,  if  possible,  by  one 
formed  from  among  the  King's  friends.  This  was  the 
easier,  inasmuch  as  the  ministry  was  divided  against 
itself.     There  were  two  distinct  elements   in  it.     The 


> 


250       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Newcastle  element  represented  the  Whig  aristocracy, 
the  Pitt  element  the  popular  part  of  the  Constitution. 
So  long  as  the  war  was  the  one  subject  of  interest,  and 
Pitt's  services  were  so  essential,  the  two  parties  had  been 
able  to  get  on  with  a  fair  degree  of  amity.  But  that 
time  had  passed.  With  the  prospect  of  peace,  the 
natural  enmities  were  manifesting  themselves.  Both 
factions  were  distasteful  to  the  King.  For,  while  Pitt's 
views  corresponded  in  some  respects  with  his  own,  he 
knew  that  no  one  could  be  king  while  Pitt  was  minister. 
In  order  that  he  might  rid  himself  of  them,  one  at  a 
time,  he  did  what  he  could  to  foment  the  existing  jeal- 
ousies.^ Pitt,  seeing  the  danger,  proposed  to  Newcastle 
to  "join  him  in  a  closer  union." ^  His  overtures  were 
rejected.  On  the  i8th  of  September,  1761,  Pitt  pro- 
posed to  his  colleagues  a  declaration  of  war  against 
Spain.  No  member  of  the  Cabinet  supported  him, 
I  except  his  brother-in-law,  Lord  Temple.  Whereupon 
1  he  declared  that  he  "  would  not  remain  in  a  situation 
which  made  him  responsible  for  measures  which  he  was 
no  longer  allowed  to  guide."  On  the  5th  of  October 
Pitt  and  Temple  resigned. 

The  Pitt  element  having  been  thus  disposed  of,  the 
King  considered  that  the  Newcastle  element   might  be 

1  "  Rockingham  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  67.    Dodington's  "  Diary," 
December  27,  1760. 

2  Walpole,  "Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  10-12. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  2$! 

safely  ignored.  He  treated  his  friend,  Lord  Bute,  who 
had  recently  been  appointed  Secretary  of  State,  as  the 
real  first  minister.  Bute  "  undertook  the  chief  manage- 
ment of  pubHc  affairs  in  the  Cabinet,  and  the  sole  direc- 
tion of  the  House  of  Lords."  ^  He  consulted  none  of 
his  colleagues  save  Lord  Egremont  and  Mr.  George 
Grenville.  The  latter  had  been  brought  into  the  Cabinet 
in  February,  1 761,  largely  because  through  Bute's  influ- 
ence he  was  beginning  to  break  away  from  Pitt.  He 
soon  beccjme  leader  of  the  Commons.  But  even  he  had 
cause  to  complain  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  consulted. 
Though  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  he  was  denied 
all  part  in  the  secret  corruption  of  members,  which  at 
that  time  was  almost  the  most  important  function  of  the 
leader  of  that  House.^  Newcastle,  though  still  the  nomi- 
nal head  of  the  government,  was  treated  like  a  mere 
cipher.  He  was  allowed  to  have  no  share  in  the  patron- 
age of  the  Crown.  Seven  peers  were  created  without  his 
knowledge.  His  subordinates  at  the  Treasury  Bench  were 
even  said  to  have  received  instructions  to  slight  him.^ 
Even  to  a  man  with  as  little  self-respect  as  Newcastle, 
the  situation  was  intolerable.     In  May,  1 762,  he  resigned. 

1  "  Buckingham  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  54,  86,  loi. 

2  "Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  I.  p.  483. 

8  Walpole,  "Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  156.  Albe- 
marle, "Life  of  Rockingham,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  102-112;  Vol.  IIL 
pp.  79,  80.  Harris,  "  Life  of  Hardwicke,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  230, 
273-274. 


252       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Both  obnoxious  factions  in  the  Cabinet  having  been 
thus  disposed  of,  Lord  Bute  became  nominal  as  well  as 
real  head  of  the  ministry.  That  the  best-hated  man  in 
the  kingdom  could  maintain  himself  in  this  position  at 
all  was  evidence  of  the  changed  attitude  of  ParHament 
and  the  country  toward  royalty.  It  had  been  otherwise 
in  1746.  But  George  III.  and  his  ministers  made  their 
designs  a  little  too  evident.  It  was  given  out  that  "  the 
King  would  be  King,  —  that  he  would  not  be  dictated  to 
by  his  ministers,  as  his  father  had  been.  The  preroga- 
tive was  to  shine  out,  and  great  lords  must  be  hum- 
bled." ^  There  was  to  be  a  general  proscription  of  the 
Whig  nobles.  Placemen  who  voted  against  the  Court 
were  to  be  dismissed.  As  a  result  the  Crown  lost  all 
that  it  had  hitherto  gained.  The  King  had  been  able  to 
increase  the  divisions  among  the  Whig  nobles  themselves, 
and  between  them  and  the  popular  party,  and  thus  had 
overthrown  all  of  them.  But  now  by  his  severe  meas- 
ures he  succeeded  in  uniting  the  Whigs  once  more  into 
an  organized  opposition.  And  not  only  so,  but  he  made 
them  the  popular  party  in  a  sense  in  which  they  had  not 
been  popular  before.  They  no  longer  considered  it 
their  principal  function  to  support  the  Crown,  as  had 
been  the  function  of  the  Whig  party  since  the  accession 
of  the  House  of  Hanover,  or  even  to  maintain  the  author- 
ity of  the  great  Whig  families,  but  rather  to  uphold  the 

1  Walpole,  "  Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  200. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  253 

rights  of  the  people  against  an  undue  exercise  of  the 
prerogative.  Never  since  the  Revolution  had  a  minister 
of  the  Crown  been  so  hated  as  was  Bute.  Even  in  the 
Cabinet  he  soon  found  himself  almost  alone.  Bedford, 
the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  and  Mansfield,  the  Chief  Justice, 
were  constantly  opposing  him.  He  saw,  as  he  himself 
put  it,  that  there  was  danger,  not  only  of  falling  himself, 
but  even  of  involving  his  royal  master  in  his  ruin.  He 
resigned,  April  8,  1763,  having  held  office  as  first  minis- 
ter only  eleven  months. 

Nevertheless,  the  King  and  his  favorite  were  far  from 
owning  themselves  defeated.  A  letter  written  at  this 
time  by  Bute  to  the  Duke  of  Bedford  shows  that  there 
was  no  intention  of  yielding  in  anything  save  form.  In 
this  letter,  the  King  is  represented  as  determined  "  never 
upon  any  account  to  suffer  the  ministers  of  the  late  reign, 
who  had  attempted  to  fetter  and  enslave  him,  ever  to 
come  into  his  service,  while  he  Hves  to  hold  the  sceptre," 
as  "  resolved  to  collect  every  other  force,  and  especially 
the  followers  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford  and  of  Mr.  Fox,  to 
his  counsels  and  support,"  and  "  to  give  every  encourage- 
ment to  those  Whig  country  gentlemen  who,  without 
abandoning  any  political  principles,  would  agree  to  sup- 
port his  government"^  He  hoped  thus  to  be  able  to 
command  a  Parliamentary  majority,  without  having  to 
place  himself  in  the  hands  of  a  party. 

1  "  Bedford  Correspondence,"  Vol.  III.  pp.  223-226. 


254       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Though  Bute  was  obliged  to  quit  office,  it  was  the  inten- 
tion that  he  should  still  be  the  principal  adviser  of  the 
Crown.  He  himself  nominated  George  Grenville  as  his 
successor,  and  arranged  with  him  the  personalia  of 
the  Cabinet. 

"We  entered  into  the  King's  service,"  Grenville  said, 
"  to  prevent  the  law  from  being  indecently  and  uncon- 
stitutionally given  to  him."  ^  And  again,  "  I  told  his 
Majesty  that  I  came  into  his  service  to  preserve  the 
Constitution  of  my  country,  and  to  prevent  any  undue 
and  unwarrantable  force  being  put  upon  the  Crown."  ^ 
Yet  the  King  and  Bute  soon  found  that  it  was  impossible 
to  make  a  mere  tool  of  the  new  minister.  He  beheved 
that  power  and  office  should  go  together,  and  was  jeal- 
ous of  Bute.  He  complained  that,  though  he  was  nomi- 
nally his  Majesty's  minister,  he  did  not  have  a  proper 
share  of  his  confidence.^  Moreover,  though  put  in 
office  to  carry  out  a  Tory  policy,  he  had  been  brought 
up  as  a  Whig,  and  still  considered  himself  a  member 
of  that  party.  He  at  least  retained  so  much  of 
Whig  principles  as  to  have  a  high  sense  of  the 
authority  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  he  pre- 
ferred to  derive  his  power  from  that  body  rather  than 
from  the  King. 

1  "  Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  II.  p.  86. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  II.  pp.  84,  88,  89. 
8  Ibid.,  Vol.  II.  p.  106. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  255 

He  entered  upon  office  in  May.  By  August  the 
King  had  found  his  ministry  such  bondage  that  he  was 
willing  to  intrust  the  government  to  Pitt,  whose  expul- 
sion from  the  administration  had  been  the  first  object 
of  his  reign.  Pitt,  though  still  retaining  his  ideas  about 
party,  thought  the  government  of  the  Whig  aristocracy 
preferable  to  the  absolute  rule  of  the  King.  He  there- 
fore refused  to  take  office  except  in  conjunction  with 
the  great  Whig  families.  To  these  terms,  the  King  re- 
fused to  consent.  "  My  honor  is  concerned,"  he  said, 
"  and  I  must  support  it."  ^ 

Finding  himself  obliged  to  retain  Grenville  as  min- 
ister, the  King  found  himself  also  obliged  to  listen  to 
his  remonstrances  against  his  favorite.  Lord  Bute  re- 
tired from  Court.  A  little  later  another  application  was 
made  to  Pitt,  but  it  was  again  impossible  to  induce  him 
to  take  office,  except  in  conjunction  with  the  Whig 
families.  This  time,  however,  the  King  made  an  unfair 
use  of  Pitt's  frankness  in  the  closet  to  sow  dissensions 
among  the  Whig  nobles.  Thus  he  succeeded  in  some 
measure  in  breaking  the  organized  opposition,  —  the 
thing  that  he  was  always  trying  to  do. 

In  1765  the  ministers  introduced  a  Regency  Bill  into 
Parliament.  They  mismanaged  it  in  such  a  way  as  to 
display  a  want  of  concert  among  themselves,  a  disre- 
gard of  the  King,  and   a    misunderstanding   of  Parlia- 

1  "  Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  96,  107. 


256       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ment.^  The  King  again  tried  to  get  rid  of  them  by 
an  appeal  to  Pitt.  This  time  he  was  so  desperate  that 
he  was  even  wilHng  to  accept  an  administration  of  the 
general  composition  of  the  administration  that  he  found 
in  office  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  —  Pitt  and  the 
Whig  famiHes.  But  he  was  not  even  allowed  to  rid 
himself  of  Grenville  in  this  way.  Pitt  refused  to  take 
office  because  of  the  objections  of  Temple.  The  Gren- 
ville ministry,  emboldened  by  the  fact  that  the  King 
was  obliged  to  retain  them,  consented  to  grant  him  the 
inestimable  boon  of  remaining  in  the  offices  of  which 
he  would  so  gladly  have  deprived  them,  on  condition 
that  Lord  Bute  should  "  not  be  suffered  to  interfere  in 
his  Majesty's  councils  in  any  manner  or  shape  what- 
soever."^ It  is  probable  that  from  this  time  Bute  no 
longer  had  a  voice  in  public  affairs.  But  though  forced 
to  retain  his  obnoxious  ministers  in  office,  the  King  was 
determined  to  govern  without  them.  When  ministers 
expressed  the  hope  that  he  would  accord  to  them  his 
confidence,  he  was  silent.  When  an  appointment  was 
to  be  made,  he  studiously  neglected  their  wishes,  and 
often  filled  it  without  even  informing  them  of  his  choice. 
This  administration  is  memorable  because  of  its  two 

1  By  an  attempt  to  exclude  the  Princess  of  Wales  from  the  list 
of  persons  capable  of  exercising  the  Regency. 

2  «  Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  41,  84.    Adolphus,  "  History  of 
George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  170. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  25/ 

principal  measures,  —  the  taxation  of  America,  and  the 
procedure  against  Wilkes.  They  were  both  royal,  rather 
than  ministerial,  measures.  The  first  was  suggested  by 
the  King,  the  second  received  his  hearty  indorsement. 
And  during  the  time  that  this  ministry  was  in  office,  as 
indeed  all  through  this  period,  the  King  systematically 
violated  the  privileges  of  Parliament.  Although  it  was 
a  constitutional  doctrine  that  he  should  not  hear  or 
give  credit  to  reports  of  Parliamentary  debates,  he 
obtained  from  his  ministers  the  most  minute  and  cir- 
cumstantial account  of  proceedings.  A  speech  or  a  vote 
against  the  Court  was  punished  by  the  personal  resent- 
ment of  the  King,  and  in  the  case  of  a  placeman,  with 
the  loss  of  his  place.  Dismissals  were  made  in  many 
cases  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of  Grenville,  who 
did  not  altogether  approve  of  the  prescriptive  poUcy 
of  the  Court. 

Finally  the  Duke  of  Bedford  demanded  an  audience, 
and  read  to  the  King  a  paper  formally  accusing  him  of  a 
want  of  confidence,  and  even  of  duplicity  in  his  dealings 
with  his  ministers.^  "  If  I  had  not  broken  into  a  profuse 
sweat,"  the  King  afterward  said,  "  I  should  have  been 
suffocated  with  indignation."  Again  Pitt  was  resorted 
to  in  vain.  At  last,  in  July,  1765,  after  the  country  had 
been  practically  for  seven  weeks  without  a  government, 

1  "Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  III.  p.  194.  "Bedford  Correspond- 
ence," Vol.  III.     Introduction,  xliv-xlv,  and  also  p.  286. 


258       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

the  main  body  of  the  Whigs  returned  to  office  under 
Rockingham. 

Not  only  was  the  new  ministry  as  a  whole  offensive  to 
the  King,  but  there  were  certain  members  of  it  whom 
he  found  personally  objectionable.  The  Marquis  of 
Rockingham,  the  new  Premier,  he  had  recently  deprived 
of  a  lieutenantcy.  Conway,  who  not  long  since  had 
been  dismissed  from  his  civil  and  military  posts,  became 
Secretary  of  State  and  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
Moreover,  the  new  ministers  came  in  with  the  express 
intention  of  reversing  the  pohcy  of  proscription  adopted 
by  the  King,  of  repealing  the  Stamp  Act,  and  of  express- 
ing their  disapproval  of  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
of  Commons  in  the  Wilkes  case. 

Nevertheless,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Court,  the 
situation  was  not  altogether  hopeless.  It  was  not  quite 
clear  that  under  present  circumstances  it  was  not  more' 
advantageous  to  the  King  to  have  his  enemies  in  office 
than  his  friends.  It  had  been  proved  that  it  was  easier 
to  render  an  administration  impotent  than  to  render  an 
opposition  impotent.  For  it  was  easier  to  sow  dissen- 
sions among  men  in  office  than  among  men  out  of 
office. 

In  this  case  the  King  had  very  good  material  upon 
which  to  work.  The  Rockingham  ministry  was  not 
united  to  begin  with.  The  King  had  been  able  to  keep 
two  of  his  friends  in  office,  —  Northington,  the  Chan- 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  259 

cellor,  and  Barrington,  Secretary  at  War.  They  were 
opposed  to  the  government  of  which  they  formed  a 
part  on  the  question  of  the  legality  of  general  warrants, 
—  a  question  which  had  been  raised  in  the  course  of  the 
proceedings  against  Wilkes,  —  and  on  the  question  of 
American  taxation,  and  in  general  they  were  at  the  ser- 
vice of  the  King.  Both  of  these  ministers  voted  against 
the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act.  Moreover,  the  Whigs  as  a 
party  returned  to  office  much  weaker  than  they  had  gone 
out.  Deaths  and  desertions  had  reduced  their  ranks. 
Charles  Townshend,  the  Paymaster  of  the  Forces,  described 
the  government  as  a  "  lute-string  administration,  fit  only 
for  summer  wear,"  and  refused  to  defend  its  measures. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  King's  friends  were  better 
organized  and  disciplined  than  ever  before.  Some  of 
them  held  subordinate  offices  in  the  government  or  in  the 
household.  Others  were  independent  members  of  Par- 
liament. In  upholding  the  King  against  his  ministers, 
they  acted  as  a  united,  organized  body.  The  King 
assured  the  officers  of  his  household  that  they  were  ai 
full  liberty  to  vote  against  the  administration.  Thus, 
according  to  Burke,  was  formed  "  an  opposition  of  a 
new  and  singular  character — an  opposition  of  placemen 
and  pensioners."  ^ 

Not  only  the  King's  friends,  but  the  King  himself 
appeared  as  the  opponent  of  the  administration.  He 
1  Burke,  **  Cause  of  the  Present  Discontents." 


260        CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

resisted  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  in  council,  and 
when  he  could  not  prevail^  he  authorized  Lord  Strange 
to  spread  about  the  report  that  he  was  opposed  to  it. 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Lord  Mansfield  argued  that 
"though  it  would  be  unconstitutional  to  endeavor  by 
his  Majesty's  name  to  carry  questions  in  Parliament, 
yet  where  the  lawful  rights  of  the  King  and  Parliament 
were  to  be  asserted  and  maintained,  he  thought  the 
making  his  Majesty's  opinion  in  support  of  those  rights 
to  be  known,  was  fit  and  becoming,"  ^  the  King 
seemed  to  feel  that  his  action  was  unconstitutional. 
And  when  in  order  to  counteract  this  report  Rocking- 
ham insisted  upon  having  the  royal  assent  to  the  repeal 
in  writing,  it  was  granted,  but  no  one  was  deceived. 

(The  King  steadily  refused  either  to  remove  from  or 
to  appoint  to  office  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  this 
ministry,  and  he  would  not  create  a  single  peer  at  its 
request. 

Owing  to  the  known  opposition  of  the  Court,  minis- 
terial majorities  dwindled.  On  an  election  petition  in 
February,  1766,  ministers  carried  their  candidate  by 
only  eleven  votes.  On  the  next  day  they  were  defeated 
in  the  Lords  by  a  majority  of  three.  In  May  the  Duke 
of  Grafton  resigned  his  position  as  Secretary  of  State. 
"  He  had,"  he  said,  "  no  objections  to  the  persons  or 
the  measures  of  the  ministers,  but  he  thought  they 
1  «  Grenville  Papers,"  Vol.  III.  p.  374. 


LATER   CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  26 1 

wanted  strength  and  efficiency  to  carry  out  proper 
measures,  and  that  Pitt  alone  could  give  them  solidity." 
In  July  the  Chancellor  Northington  informed  the  King 
that  the  ministry  found  itself  unable  to  carry  on  the 
government.  m 

The  King's  friends  had  not  been  able  to  carry  on  the 
administration,  and  the  Whig  families  had  not  been  able 
to  do  so.  The  only  resource  left  was  Pitt.  This  time 
he  did  not  refuse.  And  the  outlook  for  the  King  was 
in  some  respects  brighter  than  ever  before.  Pitt  was 
not  so  formidable  personally  as  he  had  been.  His  over- 
bearing manner  had  prevented  him  from  making  friends 
in  Parliament.  By  his  acceptance  of  an  annuity  and 
the  barony  of  Chatham  for  his  wife  at  the  time  of 
his  retirement  in  1761,  he  had  lost  considerable  of  his 
popularity  in  the  country.  By  his  acceptance  of  the 
earldom  of  Chatham  now  he  was  shorn  of  most  of  the 
popularity  that  he  had  left,  while  his  removal  from 
the  Lower  House  made  his  influence  in  the  government 
much  less.  His  obsequious  bearing  in  the  presence 
of  royalty  was  in  his  favor.  But  the  King  counted  most 
on  the  fact  that  his  views  with  respect  to  party  govern- 
ment, though  for  different  reasons,  coincided  with  his 
own.  In  writing  to  him  on  the  29th  of  July,  1766,  the 
very  day  that  he  signed  the  warrant  making  him  an 
earl,  he  said,  "  I  know  that  the  Earl  of  Chatham  will 
zealously  give  his  aid  toward  destroying  all  party  dis- 


262       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

tinctions,  and  restoring  that  subordination  to  govern- 
ment which  alone  can  preserve  that  inestimable  benefit, 
liberty,  from  degenerating  into  licentiousness."  ^  A  little 
later  he  described  "  the  very  end  proposed  at  the  for- 
mation of  the  present  administration  "  as  being  "  to  root 
out  the  present  method  of  parties  banding  together."^ 

Inasmuch  as  Chatham  did  not  consider  that  his  health 
would  permit  him  to  undertake  the  duties  of  Premier, 
he  made  the  Duke  of  Grafton  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury, 
while  he  himself  took  the  position  of  Privy  Seal.  In 
accordance  with  his  own  ideas  and  those  of  the  King, 
the  new  ministry  was  composed  of  men  of  all  shades 
of  political  opinion,  —  King's  friends  and  stanch  Whigs, 
friends  and  enemies  of  Wilkes,  friends  and  enemies 
of  each  other.  As  a  result,  the  King  got  just  what 
he  wanted.  The  administration  having  no  definite 
policy,  the  opposition  had  none  either.  The  divisions 
in  the  one  involved  divisions  in  the  other.  Hence  the 
administration,  while  so  weak  that  it  allowed  the  King 
to  rule,  could  not  easily  be  overthrown.^ 

Chatham,  however,  was  not  so  well  pleased.  He 
discovered  when  it  was  too  late  that  "  when  he  had 
accomplished   his  scheme  of  administration  he  was  no 

1  "Chatham  Correspondence,"  Vol.  II.  p.  21. 

2  Ibid.,  Vol.  III.  p.  137. 

^  This  was  the  first  ministry  defeated  on  a  money  bill  since  the 
Revolution. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  263 

longer  minister.^  "  One  thing,"  wrote  Charlemont  to 
Flood,  *'  appears  very  extraordinary,  if  not  indecent. 
No  member  of  the  opposition  speaks  without  directly 
abusing  Lord  Chatham,  and  no  friend  ever  rises  to  take 
his  part.  .  .  .  Never  was  known  such  disunion,  such 
a  want  of  concert  as  visibly  appears  on  both  sides. 
How  it  will  end,  Heaven  only  knows."  ^ 

Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  while  Chatham  was 
able  to  come  to  the  House.  In  March,  1767,  he  fell 
ill,  and  for  more  than  two  years  he  was  unable  to  attend 
to  business,  though  he  continued  in  office  until  October, 
1768.  After  his  withdrawal  from  political  life  the  min- 
istry was  divided  into  as  many  parts  as  there  were  men 
in  it.  In  July,  1767,  the  Duke  of  Grafton  desired  to 
resign.  He  was  persuaded  to  remain,  but  he  went 
only  once  a  week  to  London.  The  King  was  thus 
enabled  to  exert  an  influence  such  as  had  not  been 
possible  before  during  the  reign.  According  to  Horace 
Walpole,  "  Everybody  ran  to  Court,  and  voted  for  what- 
ever the  Court  desired."^ 

At  last,  more  through  the  Wilkes  case  and  the  Middle- 
sex election  which  grew  out  of  it  than  anything  else, 
an  opposition  to  the  Court  was  formed,  comprising  men 
in  the  Cabinet,  as  well  as  men  outside  it.     Chatham  re- 

1  Burke,  "  Speech  on  American  Taxation." 

2  "  Chatham  Correspondence,"  Vol.  III.  p.  no. 

8  Walpole,  "  Memoirs  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  II.  p.  381,  note. 


264       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

turned  to  the  House  of  Lords  to  denounce  the  ministry 
which  he  had  himself  formed,  and  to  retract  his  former 
utterances  with  respect  to  party.  The  Chancellor, 
Camden,  expressed  his  approval  and  was  dismissed. 
Granby,  the  Commander-in-chief,  declared  in  the  House 
of  Commons  that  he  would  always  consider  the  vote  he 
had  given  in  favor  of  the  incapacity  of  Wilkes  as  the  great- 
est misfortune  of  his  life.     Soon  afterward  he  resigned. 

More  important  still,  the  country  was  roused  by  the 
Wilkes  case  as  it  had  not  been  for  years.  In  July,  1769, 
the  Lord  Mayor  and  Livery  of  London  presented  an 
address  to  the  King  arraigning  the  conduct  of  ministers 
as  subversive  of  the  Constitution.  In  March,  1770,  they 
presented  another  remonstrance  supposed  to  have  been 
drawn  up  by  Chatham.  In  almost  every  county  bodies 
of  freeholders  met  to  discuss  grievances,  to  draw  up 
petitions  to  Parliament  and  instructions  to  their  mem- 
bers. On  the  28th  of  January,  1770,  Grafton  resigned. 
He  was  succeeded  by  Lord  North. 
^  And  now  the  King  found  what  he  had  been  looking 
for  ever  since  he  came  to  the  throne,  —  a  minister 
who  was  willing  to  act  as  a  mere  agent,  a  minister 
who  explained  and  defended  in  Parliament  measures 
which  he  did  not  suggest,  to  most  of  which  he  was 
opposed,  and  about  some  of  which  he  had  not  even 
been  consulted.  And  the  singular  part  of  it  was  that 
he  did  this  not  out  of  a  desire  to  remain  in  office,  but 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  26$ 

only  out  of  kindly  consideration  for  his  master.  The 
King  superintended  the  whole  course  of  administration, 
not  only  directing  his  ministers  as  to  what  measures  were 
to  be  brought  forward  in  Parhament,  but  sometimes 
even  prescribing  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be 
argued.  He  was  both  Prime  Minister  and  Cabinet. 
Lord  George  Germaine  stated  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons that  the  King  was  his  own  minister,  and  Charles 
Fox  regretted  that  "  his  Majesty  was  his  own  unadvised 
minister."  ^ 

The  King,  as  we  have  seen,  had  hoped  to  attain 
absolutism  through  the  obliteration  of  party  lines. 
Had  he  succeeded  in  abolishing  party  government 
permanently,  no  doubt  absolutism  would  have  followed. 
But  party  feehng  and  party  organization  were  too  strong 
to  be  overcome.  After  a  ten  years'  struggle  to  rule 
as  well  as  reign,  the  King  enjoyed  a  temporary  tri- 
umph, but  as  king  of  a  party.  The  opposition  was  more 
united  than  at  any  previous  time  during  the  reign.  The 
various  sections  of  the  Whigs, — the  Chathams,  the  Rock- 
inghams,  the  Grenvilles,  and  the  Temples  —  were  fight- 
ing under  the  same  banner.  This  union  and  discipHne 
in  the  Whig  ranks  entailed  a  corresponding  union  and 
discipline  among  the  Tories.  It  was  as  a  Tory  leader 
that  Lord  North  came  into  power,  and  his  administra- 
tion was  distinctively  a  Tory  administration. 

1  Fox,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  203. 


266       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

How  long  this  government  might  have  continued, 
had  it  not  been  for  popular  feeling,  it  is  difficult  to 
say.  But  that  feeling  which,  in  the  case  of  Wilkes, 
had  been  so  powerfully  aroused,  continued  to  exert  a 
strong  influence  upon  public  affairs.  In  1771  the  right 
of  Parliamentary  reporting  was  practically  secured.  In 
February  and  March  of  that  year  eight  printers  were 
ordered  to  attend  at  the  bar  of  the  House  of  Commons 
for  having  "  misrepresented  the  speeches,  and  reflected 
on  several  of  the  members  of  the  House."  Three  of 
these  failed  to  attend.  The  House  issued  a  procla- 
mation, offering  a  reward  for  the  apprehension  of  two 
of  them,  Thompson  and  Wheble,  and  ordered  the  third. 
Miller,  into  custody  for  his  offence.  In  accordance 
with  the  proclamation,  the  two  former  were  collusively 
arrested.  Thompson  was  brought  before  Alderman 
Oliver,  and  Wheble  before  Alderman  Wilkes.  They 
were  both  discharged,  and  Wheble  was  bound  over  to 
prosecute  his  captor  for  assault  and  false  imprisonment. 
In  obedience  to  the  order  of  the  House  for  taking 
Miller  into  custody,  Whittam,  a  messenger  of  the 
House,  arrested  him  in  his  shop.  But  Miller  sent  for 
a  constable,  and  gave  the  messenger  into  custody  for 
having  assaulted  him  in  his  own  house.  Printer  and 
messenger  were  taken  together  before  the  Lord  Mayor 
Crosby,  Alderman  OHver,  and  Alderman  Wilkes.  It 
being  proved  that  the  messenger  was  neither  a  peace 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  26/ 

officer  nor  a  constable,  and  that  the  warrant  was  not 
backed  by  a  city  magistrate,  Miller  was  discharged, 
and  Whittam  was  committed,  though  afterward  ad- 
mitted to  bail.  Whereupon  the  Lord  Mayor  and 
Alderman  Oliver,  being  members  of  the  House,  were 
ordered  to  appear  in  their  places,  and  Alderman  Wilkes 
at  the  bar  of  the  House.  The  audacious  Wilkes  replied 
that  he  too  would  appear  in  his  place  as  member  for 
Middlesex.  Not  daring  to  risk  another  conflict  with 
him,  the  House  changed  the  date  for  his  appearance 
to  a  day  when  it  was  not  sitting.  The  Lord  Mayor 
and  Alderman  Oliver  attended,  being  accompanied  by 
crowds,  who  cheered  them  on  their  way.  They  were 
committed  to  the  Tower,  but  the  six  weeks  that  they 
stayed  there  were  one  continual  ovation.  Distinguished 
persons  visited  them,  cities  granted  them  their  freedom, 
—  presents  were  lavished  upon  them.  When  they  were 
released,  a  triumphal  procession  accompanied  them 
from  the  Tower  to  the  Mansion  House.  After  that 
it  was  not  likely  that  any  one  would  again  be  prose- 
cuted for  the  publication  of  Parhamentary  debates. 
From  that  time  on  the  proceedings  of  both  houses 
of  Parliament  were  freely  reported,  and  the  interest 
of  the  people  in  public  affairs  increased  with  their 
knowledge. 

It  was   the   military  disasters  of   the   American   war 
that  finally  terminated  Lord  North's  government.     That 


268       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

war  had  been  popular  in  the  country  so  long  as  there 
was  good  hope  that  it  would  succeed.  But  when  it 
seemed  likely  that  it  was  doomed  to  failure,  both  it 
and  the  ministers  who  were  carrying  it  on  became 
unpopular.  As  for  North,  he  soon  gave  up  all  hope, 
perhaps  all  desire,  that  it  should  be  successful.  On 
the  17th  of  February,  1778,  he  astonished  his  own 
supporters  quite  as  much  as  the  opposition  by  moving 
Bills  of  Conciliation,  which  virtually  conceded  all  that 
America  had  been  asking  for.  He  stated  that  he  was 
acting  consistently  with  the  opinions  that  he  always 
had  held,  —  that  the  policy  of  taxing  America  was  not 
his  but  that  of  his  predecessors,  that  he  had  never 
had  any  belief  in  the  possibility  of  obtaining  a  revenue 
from  that  country.^ 

At  this  stage  in  the  proceeding  every  one,  whether 
friend  or  foe,  except  the  King,  believed  that  the  only 
hope  was  in  Chatham.  North,  Bute,  and  Mansfield  all 
begged  that  he  be  sent  for.  But  it  was  more  impor- 
tant to  the  King  that  he  should  rule  than  that  the 
country  should  prosper,  or  even  be  safe.  "No  advan- 
tage to  this  country,"  he  said,  "no  present  danger  to 
myself  can  ever  make  me  address  myself  to  Lord 
Chatham,   or    any   other   branch   of    the   opposition."^ 

1  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XIX.  col.  762  et  seq. 

2  "  Correspondence  of  George  III.  with  Lord  North,"  Vol.  III. 
pp.  149,  150. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  269 

Again,  "  While  any  ten  men  of  the  kingdom  will  stand 
by  me,  I  will  not  give  myself  up  to  bondage."  ^  A  little 
later,  "  Rather  than  be  shackled  by  these  desperate 
men  (if  the  Nation  will  not  stand  by  me)  I  will  rather 
see  any  form  of  government  introduced  into  this  island, 
and  lose  my  crown,  rather  than  wear  it  as  a  disgrace."  ^ 
He  yielded,  however,  so  far  to  the  pressure  that  was 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  as  to  write  to  North  that  he 
might  address  himself  to  Chatham  if  he  chose;  but  it 
was  to  be  understood  that  he  himself  would  never  ad- 
dress him  save  through  North,  and  on  the  understanding 
that  he  was  but  to  occupy  a  subordinate  place  in  a 
ministry  in  which  North  was  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury. 
As  might  have  been  expected,  these  negotiations 
failed.  Later,  overtures  made  to  the  Whig  leaders  to 
join  a  ministry  under  Lord  Weymouth  were  also  un- 
successful. In  June,  1779,  the  King's  position  was 
strengthened  by  the  appointment  of  his  friend,  Lord 
Thurlow,  to  the  chancellorship.  He  grew  bolder.  No 
one  was  to  come  into  the  Cabinet  save  to  carry  out 
his]  measures.  On  the  2 2d  of  June,  he  wrote,  "Be- 
fore I  will  hear  of  any  man's  readiness  to  come 
into  office,  I  will   expect   to   see   it   signed   under   his 

1  Lord  Brougham's  "  Works,"  Vol.  III.  p.  1 10.    Fox,  "  Memojrs," 
Vol.  I.  p.  191. 

2  Lord  Brougham's  "  Works,"  Vol.  III.  p.  1 1 1.    Fox,  "  Memoirs," 
Vol.  I.  p.  193. 


2/0       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

own  hand  that  he  is  resolved  to  keep  the  empire  en- 
tire, and  that  no  troops  shall  be  consequently  drawn 
from  thence  (America)  nor  independence  ever  allowed."^ 
Again  he  wrote,  that  while  "it  was  impossible  in  Eng- 
land to  govern  without  the  concurrence  of  Parliament, 
this  country  would  never  regain  a  proper  tone  unless 
ministers,  as  in  the  reign  of  King  WiUiam,  would  not 
mind  being  now  and  then  in  a  minority.'"  ^  Neverthe- 
less in  December  he  was  again  induced  to  make  over- 
tures to  the  opposition,  still,  however,, stipulating  that  the 
change  in  men  was  to  involve  no  change  in  measures. 
Again  the  offer,  thus  conditioned,  was  rejected. 

In  1780  the  country  became  more  decidedly  aroused 
than  ever  before.  Associations  were  everywhere  formed. 
Petitions  werfe  sent  in  from  all  parts  of  the  country 
against  the  American  war  and  the  corrupt  influence  of 
the  Crown.  April  6,  1780,  Mr.  Dunning  moved  his 
famous  resolution  "  that  the  influence  of  the  Crown 
has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be  dimin- 
ished."^ Inasmuch  as  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was 
largely  due  to  the  amount  of  patronage  at  its  disposal, 
this  resolution  was  followed  by  resolutions  in  favor  of 
economic  reform. 

1  Fox,  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  236. 

2  "  Correspondence  of  George  III.  and  Lord  North,"  Vol.  III. 

p.  193- 

3  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XXI.  col.  339. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  2^1 

The  King  resolved  on  an  appeal  to  the  country. 
In  September,  1780,  Parliament  was  dissolved.  In  the 
general  election  that  followed,  the  country  at  large 
was  probably  more  interested  than  in  any  previous 
election  in  its  history.  "  Hitherto,"  said  Sir  George 
Savile,  "  I  have  been  elected  in  Lord  Rockingham's  din- 
ing room.  Now  I  am  returned  by  my  constituents." 
The  King  complained  that  the  expenses  of  this  election 
were  at  least  double  those  of  any  preceding  election.^ 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  new  Parliament 
was  even  less  submissive  than  its  predecessor  had 
been.  March  4,  1782,  General  Conway  moved  a  reso- 
lution "that  the  House  will  consider  as  enemies  to 
the  King  and  country  all  who  shall  advise  the  further 
prosecution  of  offensive  war  for  the  purpose  of  reduc- 
ing the  revolted  colonies  to  obedience  by  force."  ^ 
And  the  Prime  Minister  replied  that  he  was  prepared 
to  carry  out  the  instructions  of  the  House,  although 
to  do  so  would  mean  the  direct  reversal  of  his  policy. 
Fox  inveighed  against  an  administration  remaining  in 
office  to  carry  out  the  policy  of  the  opposition.  On 
March  20  North  resigned,  just  in  time  to  avoid  a 
motion  demanding  his  dismissal.  The  task  of  forming 
a  new   administration  was  committed   to   Rockingham. 

^  "  Correspondence  of  George  III.  and  Lord  North,"  Vol.  II. 
p.  422. 

2  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XXII.  col.  iioo. 


2/2       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGIAND 

The  outgoing  minister  said  wittily  that  the  late 
opposition  had  often  accused  him  of  issuing  lying 
gazettes,  but  that  his  administration  had  never  issued 
any  gazette  half  so  false  as  that  in  which  their  suc- 
cessors announced  their  installation  in  office;  for  it 
consisted  of  a  long  series  of  paragraphs,  each  of  them 
beginning  with  the  words,  "  His  Majesty  has  been 
pleased  to  appoint."  Indeed,  the  King  was  said  to 
have  contemplated  abdicating.  Not  only  was  the 
personalia  of  the  new  administration  objectionable  to 
him,  but  Lord  Rockingham  came  into  office  only  on 
condition  that  he  might  make  peace  with  America  on 
the  basis  of  its  independence,  and  bring  forward  meas- 
ures for  the  abolition  of  offices,  the  exclusion  of  con- 
tractors from  Parliament,  and  the  disfranchisement  of 
revenue  officers  —  measures  which  must  tend  to  a 
reduction  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown. 

The  King  resorted  to  the  tactics  that  he  had  always 
employed  when  his  enemies  were  in  office  —  that  of  stir- 
ring up  dissensions  among  them.  And  again  circum- 
stances favored  him  ;  for  the  second  Rockingham 
administration,  like  the  first  Rockingham  administra- 
tion, was  divided  against  itself.  The  King  had  been  able 
to  retain  his  friend  Thurlow  in  office.  This  minister 
was  openly  opposed  to  Lord  Rockingham,  who,  he  said, 
*^  was  bringing  things  to  a  pass  where  either  his  head  or 
the  King's  must  go  in  order  to  settle  which  of  them  is  to 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  273 

govern  the  country."  ^  He  continued  in  the  Cabinet  as 
the  King's  man,  to  oppose  it  on  every  possible  occasion.^ 
The  rest  of  the  government  was  Whig,  but  it  contained 
two  very  dissimilar  elements,  —  the  Rockingham  Whigs 
and  the  Chatham  Whigs,  the  Rockinghams  standing 
preeminently  for  party  organization  and  party  govern- 
ment, while  the  Chathams  leaned  toward  the  breaking- 
down  of  party  lines.^  The  nominal  chief  of  the  Rocking- 
hams was  Rockingham  himself;  but  the  ablest  member 
of  the  party  in  the  Cabinet  was  Charles  James  Fox,"*  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs.  Since  the  death  of 
Lord  Chatham,  Lord  Shelburne  had  been  the  chief  of 
the  Chatham  Whigs.  This  man,  who,  for  some  reason 
not  very  clear  to  posterity,  was  almost  universally  dis- 
liked by  his  contemporaries,  was  made  Secretary  of  State 
for  Home  and  the  Colonies.    In  all  negotiations  the  King 

1  In   the    House    of    Lords   he    described    ministerial    bills    as 
"  attempts   to  deceive    and   betray   the   people,   and   advised   the , 
Lords  not  to  vote  for  them  to  please  the  ministers."     "  Parliamen- 
tary History,"  Vol.  XXH.  col.  1356. 

2  "  During  the  Rockingham  administration  the  Chancellor  was 
really  the  leader  of  his  Majesty's  opposition  in  the  House  of 
Lords."  —  Campbell,  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  Vol.  V.  p.  543. 

8  The  two  parties  in  the  Cabinet  were  about  equally  divided  : 
Rockingham,  Fox,  Richmond,  Lord  John  Cavendish,  and  Keppel  on 
the  one  side  ;  Shelburne,  Thurlow,  Grafton,  Camden,  and  Ashburton 
on  the  other  side,  while  Conway  was  sometimes  with  one,  some- 
times with  the  other. 

*  Son  of  Henry  Fox  of  the  preceding  reign. 


274       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

selected  him  as  his  agent,  and  conducted  business  with 
the  Prime  Minister  through  him.  This  increased  the  bad 
feeling  in  the  Cabinet,  as  it  was  intended  that  it  should. 

"  Provided  we  can  stay  in  long  enough  to  give  a  good 
stout  blow  to  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  I  do  not  think 
it  much  signifies  how  soon  we  go  out  after,"  Fox  wrote 
to  Fitzpatrick.^  In  spite  of  the  disadvantages  under 
which  this  ministry  labored,  the  good  stout  blow  was 
struck.  As  we  have  seen,  the  ParHamentary  majorities 
which  the  Court  was  able  to  command  were  largely  the 
result  of  patronage.  This  patronage  was  distributed 
both  among  the  electors  and  among  members  of  Par- 
liament.^ Under  Rockingham  an  act  was  passed  dis- 
franchising revenue  officers.  During  the  North 
administration  no  fewer  than  twelve  thousand  of  these 
officers  had  been  appointed.  Their  total  number  is 
variously  estimated  at  from  forty  to  sixty  thousand  out 
of  an  electoral  body  of  three  hundred  thousand.  Their 
disfranchisement,  therefore,  meant  a  decided  weakening 
of  the  government  influence  at  elections.  Further,  by 
Burke's  Economical  Reform  Act,  also  passed  during  this 
administration,    more   than   forty   considerable   employ- 

1  Fox,  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  I.  p.  317. 

2  In  the  first  Parliament  of  George  I.  there  were  271  members 
holding  offices,  pensions,  and  sinecures  —  about  half  the  whole 
number  of  the  House  of  Commons.  In  the  first  Parliament  of 
George  II.  there  were  257  ;  in  the  first  Parliament  of  George  IV., 
89,  exclusive  of  army  and  navy  officers. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  2/5 

ments  were  cut  off,  provision  was  made  for  gradually 
reducing  the  pension  list  to  ;^90,ooo,  and  the  Secret 
Service  Fund  to  be  expended  within  the  kingdom 
was  limited  to  ;^io,ooo  annually  —  a  saving  of  about 
;^72,ooo.  ym 

On  the  first  of  July,  1782,  Rockingham  died.  Shel- 
bume  succeeded  him  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  He 
and  Fox  being  constitutionally  at  variance,  and  having 
quarrelled  over  peace  negotiations  with  America,  Fox 
and  his  friends  retired. 

It  was  one  of  Horace  Walpole's  happy  sayings  that 
"  the  Crown  devolved  upon  the  King  of  England  on  the 
death  of  Lord  Rockingham."^  It  was  beheved  that 
Shelburne  trusted  to  maintain  himself  entirely  by  the 
royal  favor.  He  himself  said  that  he  would  "never 
consent  that  the  King  of  England  should  be  a  King  of 
the  Mahrattas ;  for  among  the  Mahrattas  the  custom  is, 
it  seems,  for  a  certain  number  of  great  lords  to  elect  a 
Peishwah,  who  is  thus  the  creature  of  the  aristocracy  and 
is  invested  with  the  plenitude  of  power,  while  their  king 
is,  in  fact,  nothing  more  than  a  royal  pageant."  ^ 

It  is  doubtful  how  much  of  the  royal  favor  Shelburne 
enjoyed.  It  is  certain  that  he  enjoyed  no  other  favor. 
His  colleagues  were  constantly  suspecting  him  of  du- 
plicity, and  complaining  of  his  failure  to  consult  them. 

1  Lady  Minto's  "  Life  of  H.  Elliot,"  p.  255. 

2  "  Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XXIII.  col.  192. 


2/6       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Grafton,  who  held  the  Privy  Seal,  expressed  his  deter- 
mination never  to  consider  Shelburne  as  Prime  Minister, 
but  simply  "  as  holding  the  principal  office  in  the  Cabi- 
net." When  Shelburne  brought  the  Duke  of  Rutland 
into  the  ministry  without  previously  informing  his  col- 
leagues, Grafton  retired.  In  January,  1783,  the  Duke 
of  Richmond  told  the  King  that  he  would  attend 
no  more  Cabinet  meetings,  although  he  remained  in 
office.  Almost  every  member  of  the  administration 
quarrelled  with  his  chief,  except  young  WilHam  Pitt, 
who  at  the  age  of  twenty-three  had  been  made  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer.  And  he  afterward  said  that 
he  had  atoned  for  any  errors  he  might  have  committed 
during  his  lifetime  by  having  served  almost  a  year  under 
Lord  Shelburne.^ 

The  King's  plan  had  been  to  destroy  party  govern- 
ment, in  order  that  he  might  replace  it  by  his  own 
government.  Now  his  tactics  were  turned  against 
himself  in  a  most  unexpected  and  violent  manner.  No 
two  men  had  indulged  in  more  abusive  language  against 
each  other  than  Lord  North  and  Mr.  Fox.  Now  the 
Tories,  led  by  Lord  North,  and  the  Whigs,  led  by  Mr. 
Fox,  electrified  the  Court  and  the  country  by  joining  to 
overthrow  the  King's  friends,  represente<jU)^  they  believed 
by  Lord  Shelburne.  When  Mr.  Fox  insisted  that  the 
King  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  his  own  minister,  Lord 

1  Russell,  "  Life  of  Fox,"  Vol.  I.  p.  326. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  277 

North,  who  had  done  more  than  any  other  one  man  to 
build  up  personal  royal  government,  replied,  "  The  King 
ought  to  be  treated  with  every  sort  of  respect  and  atten- 
tion, but  the  appearance  of  power  is  all  that  a  king  of 
this  country  can  have."  ^ 

The  King  did  not  submit  to  this  coalition  of  his  ene- 
mies and  his  former  friends  until  everything  else  had 
been  tried  and  failed.  He  allowed  the  country  to  be 
thirty-seven  days  without  a  government,  while  he 
appealed  to  Mr.  Pitt,  made  separate  proposals  to  Lord 
North  and  the  Duke  of  Portland,  and  finally  to  Lord 
Weymouth.  Then,  on  the  2d  of  April,  1783,  the 
coalition  ministry  was  completed  with  the  Duke  of  Port- 
land as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury. 

Bishop  Watson  says  that  on  the  day  the  new  nUinisters 
came  into  office,  some  one  (probably  Pitt)  told  Lord 
John  Cavendish  that  they  had  two  things  against  them,  — 
the  closet  and  the  country.^  When  they  kissed  hands, 
a  bystander  predicted  their  early  fall,  for  he  observed 
George  IIL  "  turn  back  his  ears  and  eyes,  just  like  the 
horse  at  Astley's  when  the  tailor  it  had  determined  to 
throw  was  mounting."  ^  The  day  before  the  King  wrote 
to  Lord  Temple,  "A  ministry  which  I  have  avowedly 
attempted  to  avoid  by  calling  on  every  other  description 

1  "Fox  Correspondence,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  37-38. 

2  Lewis,  "  Administrations  of  Great  Britain,"  p.  65,  note. 
8  Fox,  «  Memoirs,"  Vol.  II.  p.  228. 


lyZ      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

of  men  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  either  my  favor 
or  my  confidence;  and  as  such  I  shall  most  certainly 
refuse  any  honors  that  they  may  ask  for."  ^  Again  to  the 
same  nobleman  he  wrote  "that  to  such  a  ministry  he 
would  never  give  his  confidence,  and  would  take  the 
first  opportunity  of  dismissing  them."  ^ 

As  for  the  country,  the  coalition  brought  out  very 
clearly  how  httle  it  had  to  do  with  the  government; 
how  little  the  government  thought  it  necessary  to  con- 
cern itself  with  it.  The  man  who  had  been  the  strongest 
advocate  of  the  American  war,  and  the  man  who  had 
been  its  ablest  opponent,  the  man  who  had  been  the 
King's  best  agent  in  augmenting  the  power  of  the  Crown, 
and  the  man  who  had  been  the  bitterest  enemy  of  that 
power,  had  joined  forces.  Although  the  purposes  of  the 
founders  of  the  coalition  were  probably  honorable,  their 
action  being  based  upon  the  belief  that  only  thus  could 
a  strong  and  permanent  government  be  formed,  in  which 
the  direction  of  affairs  should  rest  with  the  ministers 
and  not  with  the  Crown,  it  was  hard  to  make  outsiders 
believe  that  such  was  the  case.  It  was  difficult  for  the 
nation  to  regard  the  new  government  as  anything  save 
a  corrupt  coalition  to  obtain  office,  by  which  its  interests 
had  been  and  would  be  wholly  neglected. 

The  ministers   soon  give  the  King  an  opportunity  to 

1  "  Buckingham  Papers,"  Vol.  I.  p.  303. 

2  "Courts  and  Cabinets  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  p.  302. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  2/9 

put   his  hostility  into  active  and  definite  form.     They 
brought  in  an  India  Bill,  which  placed  the  patronage  of 
India  in  the  hands  of  commissioners  to  be  appointed 
by   Parliament,  and   to   be  irremovable  by  the  Crown. 
The  first  set  of  these  commissioners  were  to  be  nomi- 
nated by  the  ministers.     The  King  was  enraged,  chiefly  • 
because  the  bill  took  from  him  a  large  part  of  the  patron-  \ 
age  which  he  used  in  maintaining  his  majorities.      In-  « 
deed,  through  this  patronage  a  party  of  ministers'  friends  /  f 
might  be  built  up  in  constant  opposition  to  the  King's ' 
friends.      "  If  the  bill  passed,"  Thurlow  said  in  Parlia- 
ment, "  the  King  would  in  fact  take  the  diadem  from  his 
own  head  and  place  it  on  the  head  of  Mr.  Fox."  ^  To 
the  country,  too,  it  seemed  as  though  the  ministers  were 
using  the  places  which  they  had  corruptly  obtained  to 
build  up  a  corrupt  influence  in  Parliament,  which  might 
always  be  counted  upon  to  support  them. 

Such  was  the  Parliamentary  following  of  the  coalition, 
that  it  was  absolutely  certain  that  the  bill  would  pass  the  y^ 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  determined,  therefore,  to 
strike  a  blow  in  the  Lords.  The  King  gave  Lord  Temple 
a  card,  authorizing  him  to  say  that  "  whoever  voted  for 
the  India  Bill  was  not  only  not  his  friend,  but  would  be 
considered  by  him  as  an  enemy;  and  if  these  words 
were  not  strong  enough.  Earl  Temple  might  use  what- 
ever words  he  might  deem  stronger  and  more  to  the 
1  "  Buckingham  Papers,"  Vol.  I.  p.  288. 


280      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

purpose."  ^  The  result  of  this  move  soon  became  ap- 
parent. "The  bishops  waver,"  wrote  Fitzpatrick,  " and 
the  thanes  fly  from  us."^  The  Tory  followers  of  Lord 
North  especially  showed  a  disposition  to  desert  the  min- 
istry. On  the  17th  of  December,  1783,  the  Bill  was 
'rejected  by  95  to  76.  The  same  day  the  House  of 
Commons  passed  a  resolution  which  was  virtually  a  vote 
of  censure  on  the  Crown  to  the  effect  that  "  to  report 
any  opinion  or  pretended  opinion  of  his  Majesty  upon 
any  bill  or  other  proceeding  depending  in  either  House 
of  Parliament,  with  a  view  to  influence  the  votes  of  the 
members,  is  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor  derogatory  to 
the  honor  of  the  Crown,  a  breach  of  the  fundamental 
privileges  of  Parliament,  and  subversive  of  the  Constitu- 
tion."^ In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  ministry  still  com- 
manded an  overwhelming  majority  in  the  Commons,  the 
King  sent  commands  at  midnight  to  Mr.  Fox  and  Lord 
North  to  deliver  up  their  seals  of  office,  and  to  send  them 
by  their  under-secretaries,  "  as  he  must  decline  to  see 
them  in  person." 

The  coalition  ministry  having  been  thus  disposed  of, 
William  Pitt,  a  young  man  of  twenty-five,  was  appointed 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 

1  "Courts  and  Cabinets  of  George  III.,"  Vol.  I.  pp.  288,  289. 
Fox,  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  II.  p.  253. 

2  Fox,  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  II.  p.  220. 

8  "Parliamentary  History,"  Vol.  XXIV.  col.  199. 


LATER   CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  28 1 

chequer.  The  news  of  his  appointment  was  received  in 
the  House  of  Commons  with  shouts  of  derision.  He 
entered  upon  office  with  an  overwhehning  majority 
against  him,  and  insisted  upon  retaining  his  position  in 
spite  of  resolution  after  resolution  implying  want  of  con- 
fidence, the  defeat  of  his  principal  measures,  and  the 
postponement  of  suppHes.  Alone  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  he  met  the  attacks  upon  him.  For  his  Cabi- 
net consisted  of  but  seven  persons,  and  among  the  seven 
he  himself  was  the  only  commoner. 

Inasmuch  as  the  opposition  commanded  so  large  a 
majority  in  the  Lower  House,  it  was  supposed  that 
almost  the  first  action  of  the  minister  would  be  to 
dissolve  Parliament,  and  issue  writs  for  a  new  election. 
The  efforts  of  the  majority  therefore  were  directed 
toward  preventing  such  a  dissolution.  That  put  them 
in  the  wrong,  and  Pitt  in  the  right.  For  a  minister  to 
remain  in  office  with  a  vast  majority  against  him  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  without  appealing  to  the 
country,  was  certainly  an  unconstitutional  proceeding. 
But  so  long  as  the  Commons  refused  to  allow  this  ^ 
appeal  to  the  country,  they  and  not  the  minister  had  ; 
to  bear  the  burden  of  the  blame. 

Pitt  indeed  had  no  desire  to  dissolve  Parliament  at 
that  time.  He  believed  that  the  longer  the  contro- 
versy continued  the  more  the  opposition  must  decrease, 
and   he   must   increase.     He   was   not   mistaken.     The 


282       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

extreme  Whigs  and  the  extreme  Tories  had  never 
liked  the  coalition.  They  began  to  fall  away  from 
it.  There  were  others  who  were  convinced  by  argu- 
ment. And  there  was  a  large  number  who  changed 
sides  because  of  the  general  disposition  of  mankind 
to  be  on  the  winning  side.  At  last  Fox's  majority 
dwindled  to  one.  Then  on  the  24th  of  March  Par- 
liament was  dissolved.  Shortly  afterward  the  writs 
for  a  new  election  were  issued. 

Then  it  was  proved  that  the  delay  had  gained  votes 
for  Pitt  not  only  in  the  House  of  Commons,  but  in 
the  country.  Public  opinion,  in  so  far  as  it  existed, 
had  always  been  opposed  to  the  coalition.  But  to 
a  very  considerable  extent  it  did  not  exist.  During 
the  more  than  three  months'  discussion  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  this  opinion  had  been  forming  itself. 
And  the  unwillingness  of  the  opposition  to  submit  the 
question  at  issue  to  the  country,  had  tended  to  in- 
crease the  popular  feeling  against  it.  The  result  was 
a  complete  victory  for  the  government.  One  hundred 
and  sixty  followers  of  Fox  lost  their  seats.  The  prec- 
edent was  established  that  if  the  ministers  chosen 
by  the  Crown  do  not  possess  the  confidence  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  they  may  appeal  to  the  people, 
with  whom  is  the  final  decision. 

And  so  it  seemed  as  though  the  King  had  tri- 
umphed.    In   reality  it   was   the   people  who   had  tri- 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  283 

umphed.  When  the  great  Whig  families  had  expelled 
the  Stuarts,  they  reigned  in  their  stead.  They  under- 
took to  carry  on  a  government,  which  at  the  time 
no  one  else  could  carry  on  with  safety.  But  their 
mission  had  long  since  been  accomplished.  Now  it 
was  determined  that  they  should  no  longer  rule. 

And  it  was  soon  discovered  that  the  power  of  the 
Crown  as  well  as  the  power  of  the  nobles  had  been 
broken  by  the  elections  of  1784.  For  seventeen  years 
Pitt  was  an  even  more  absolute  minister  than  Walpole 
had  been.  The  King  was  powerless  against  him;  for 
if  he  dismissed  him,  the  only  alternative  was  Fox. 
Sq^^ce  morejh^  mijji5terj..and^  n^^  ^^"i?  became 

the  centre  of  authority.  And  while,  until  the  Reforixi 
Act  of  1832,  the  King  continued  to  have  a  more  or 
less  determining  voice  as  to  who  the  minister  should 
be,  from  1 784  it  was  the  minister  who  chose  the  policy. 
During  Pitt's  ministry,  too,  the  system  of  Parliamentary 
corruption  was  almost  completely  terminated,  and  so 
one  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of  royal  influence  was 
■cut  off. 

Although  Pitt,  while  in  office,  was  able  to  keep  the 
King  from  exercising  an  undue  influence  on  public 
afl'airs,  yet  his  fall  in  1801  was,  like  his  rise,  due 
largely  to  the  royal  will.  It  is,  however,  true  that  he 
had  to  meet  not  only  the  opposition  of  the  King,  but 
a   divided    Cabinet.  ^When    in    September,    1800,    he 


284      CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

y 

brought  the  question  of  Catholic  emancipation  before 
the  Cabinet,  the  Chancellor  Loughborough  objected 
to  any  favor  being  granted  to  CathoHcs  beyond  the 
commutation  of  tithes.  Further,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  his  colleagues,  he  informed  the  King  of  their 
intention.  The  King  expressed  himself  in  the  strong- 
est manner  as  opposed  to  the  measure.  The  knowl- 
edge of  the  royal  sentiments  made  an  impression  upon 
the  Cabinet.  Several  members  began  to  waver.  When, 
on  the  31st  of  December,  Pitt  wrote  to  the  King, 
outlining  his  policy  with  respect  to  the  Catholics,  he 
described  it  as  "  what  appears  to  be  the  prevailing  sen- 
timent of  the  majority  of  the  Cabinet'^  The  King 
answered  that  his  coronation  oath  forbade  his  even 
discussing  the  question.  Whereupon  Pitt  resigned. 
vYet  even  here  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  there  was  an 
advance.  It  is  true  that  Pitt  resigned,  because  he 
could  not  make  the  King  agree  with  his  measures. 
But  some  of  his  predecessors  would  have  stayed  in 
office  to  carry  out  the  King's  measures.  Pitt  told 
Canning  that  he  \vent  out  not  on  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion, simply  as  a  measure  in  which  he  was  opposed, 
but  because  he  knew  that  if  he  had  assented  he  would, 
as  a  minister,  have  been  on  a  footing  totally  different 
from  what  he  had  ever  before  been  in  the  Cabinet.^ 
Had  not  the  King's  health  at  that  time  been  in  a  very 
1  Malmesbury,  "  Diaries,"  p.  75. 


LATER   CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  285 

precarious  condition,  it  is  possible  that  he  would  have 
remained  in  office,  and  forced  his  measures  through. 

In  Addington,  who  succeeded  Pitt,  the  King  found 
a  Prime  Minister  after  his  own  heart.  He  was  fond 
of  speaking  of  him  as  ^^  my  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer," "  my  own  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer." 
But  the  administration  was  too  weak  to  last,  and  in 
1804  Pitt  was  restored  to  power. 

On  his  return  to  office,  Pitt  proposed  that  Fox  be 
admitted  to  the  Cabinet.  The  King  asserted  his 
authority  as  in  the  old  days,  declaring  "  that  he  had 
taken  a  positive  resolution  not  to  admit  Mr.  Fox  into 
his  Councils,  even  at  the  hazard  of  a  civil  war."  ^  Pitt 
did  not  press  the  matter  further. 

The  death  of  Pitt  in  1806  was  followed  by'  the 
Grenville-Fox  ministry  of  "All  the  Talents."  That 
fell  like  the  Pitt  ministry  in  1801,  because  it  proposed 
to  grant  concessions  to  the  Catholics.  The  obnoxious 
measure  was  withdrawn.  But  the  King,  not  satisfied 
with  this,  proceeded  to  demand  from  his  ministers  a 
pledge  that  they  "would  never  under  any  circum- 
stances propose  to  him  further  concessions  to  the 
Catholics,  or  even  offer  him  advice  upon  the  sub- 
ject."^   This  the  ministers  refused.     They  were  there- 

1  "  Rose's  Correspondence,"  Vol.  II.  pp.  156,  182. 

2  "  Hansard  Debates,"  Vol.  IX.  col.  243.  "  Lord  Sidmouth's 
Life,"  Vol.  II.  p.  414. 


286       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

fore   dismissed,  and  a  new   administration   was  formed 
under  Mr.  Perceval. 

The  Commons  did  not  allow  these  proceedings  on 
the  part  of  the  King  to  pass  uncensured.  On  the  9th 
of  April  a  resolution  was  introduced  into  the  House 
of  Commons,  to  the  effect  that  it  was  "contrary  to 
the  first  duties  of  the  confidential  servants  of  the 
Crown  to  restrain  themselves  by  any  pledge,  expressed 
or  implied,  from  offering  to  the  King  any  advice 
which  the  course  of  circumstances  may  render  nec- 
essary for  the  welfare  and  security  of  the  Empire." 
In  the  debate  it  was  argued  that  to  admit  the  consti- 
tutionahty  of  such  pledges  would  be  to  make  the 
Crown  absolute.  For  the  King  could  not  be  held 
responsible ;  and  if  the  ministers  also  should  avoid 
responsibility  by  a  pledge  to  the  Crown,  the  govern- 
ment would  be  nothing  short  of  a  despotism.  Sir 
Samuel  Romilly  even  maintained  that  if  the  ministers 
had  given  such  a  pledge,  they  would  have  been  guilty  of 
a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor.^  In  discussing  a  simi- 
lar motion  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Erskine  said 
that  if  such  pledges  were  allowable,  "the  King,  instead 
of  submitting  to  be  advised  by  his  councillors,  might 
give  the  rule  himself  as  to  what  he  might  be  advised 
in,  until  those  who  are  solemnly  sworn  to  give  full 
and  impartial  counsel,  and  who  are  responsible  to  the 
1  "  Hansard  Debates,"  Vol.  IX.  col.  327. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  287 

public  for  their  conduct  as  his  advisers,  might  be 
penned  up  in  a  corner  in  their  duties  and  jurisdic- 
tion, and  the  state  might  go  to  ruin."  Further,  he 
declared  that  "  the  King  can  perform  no  act  of  gov- 
ernment himself,  and  no  man  ought  to  Be  received 
within  the  walls  of  this  House,  to  declare  that  any 
act  of  government  has  proceeded  from  the  private  will 
and  determination  or  conscience  of  the  King.  The 
King  as  chief  magistrate  can  have  no  conscience, 
which  is  not  in  the  trust  of  responsible  subjects. 
When  he  delivers  the  seals  of  office  to  his  officers  of 
state,  his  conscience  as  it  regards  the  state  accom- 
panies them."^ 

Although  the  motion  was  not  carried  in  either 
House,  the  King  decided  to  dissolve  Parliament.  He 
said  that  he  was  "  anxious  to  recur  to  the  sense  of  his 
people,  while  the  events  which  haVe  recently  taken 
place  are  yet  fresh  in  their  recollections."  The  loyalty 
and  religious  feeling  of  the  people  returned  a  large 
majority  for  the  Crown. 

Shortly  after  this  began  the  period  of  the  regency. 
Events  at  this  time  show  that  the  royal  influence  was 
still  considered  quite  sufficient  to  support  a  ministry. 
The  Prince  of  Wales  found  a  Tory  government  in 
power.  His  own  sympathies  were  supposed  to  be 
with  the  Whigs.  That  party,  therefore,  expected  to 
1  "Hansard  Debates,"  Vol.  IX.  cols.  Z^^-Z^^i. 


288       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

come  into  office.  Whigs  and  Tories  were  alike  sure 
of  being  able  to  command  a  majority  if  only  they  had 
the  support  of  the  Regent.  He  finally  decided  to 
retain  the  Tories. 

Again,  after  the  accession  of  George  IV.,  we  find  the 
ministers,  in  the  matter  of  the  Queen's  trial,  lending 
themselves  to  gratify  the  anger  and  hatred  of  the  King, 
although  they  disapproved  of  the  whole  affair. 

In  1822  Mr.  Brougham  introduced  into  the  House  of 
Commons  a  motion  declaring  that  the  influence  of  the 
Crown  was  "  unnecessary  for  maintaining  its  constitu- 
tional prerogatives,  destructive  of  the  independence  of 
Parliament,  and  inconsistent  with  the  well-governing  of 
the  realm."  He  maintained  that  that  influence  had 
greatly  increased  since  the  Dunning  resolution  of  1780, 
although  the  number  of  placemen  had  decreased.  The 
motion  was,  however,  defeated  by  a  large  majority.^ 

George  IV.,  like  his  father,  was  opposed  to  Catholic 

emancipation.     Through  his  opposition  it  was  postponed 

as  long  as  possible;  and  when  at  last,  in  1829,  he  was 

Jf obliged  to  yield,  he  showed   marked   incivility  to   the 

l|ministers  who  carried  it.     Through  royal  opposition,  this 

■I measure  had  been  delayed  thirty  years. 

So  long  as  the  House  of  Commons  represented  the 
people  so  badly,  it  was  natural  that  the  influence  of  the 
Crown  should  be  great.     Nor  was  this  altogether  undesir- 

1  "  Hansard  Debates,"  Second  Series,  Vol.  VII.  col.  1266. 


LATER   CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  289 

able,  for  so  long  as  the  House  of  Commons  was  unre- 
formed,  the  people  could  often  only  make  themselves 
felt  through  the  differences  between  King  and  Parliament 
as  one  side  or  the  other  called  them  in. 

Perhaps  the  last  act  of  unconstitutional  interference 
with  the  deliberations  of  Parliament  on  the  part  of 
royalty  was  the  act  by  which  William  IV.  made  such 
interference  almost  impossible  in  the  future.  In  1832, 
rather  than  create  a  large  number  of  peers  in  order  to 
carry  the  Reform  Bill,  he,  in  the  manner,  but  not  in  the 
spirit  of  George  III.,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  min- 
isters, caused  a  circular  letter  to  be  addressed  to  the 
opposition  peers,  to  the  effect  that  "  all  difficulties  to  the 
arrangement  in  progress  would  be  obviated  by  a  declara- 
tion in  the  House  from  a  sufficient  number  of  peers  that 
in  consequence  of  the  present  state  of  affairs,  they  had 
come  to  the  resolution  of  dropping  further  opposition  to 
the  Reform  Bill." 

The  Reform  Bill  was  passed.  And  the  result  soon 
became  evident.  In  1834  the  King  dismissed  the  Whig 
ministry  of  Lord  Melbourne,  and  intrusted  Sir  Robert 
Peel  with  the  task  of  forming  a  new  administration. 
There  was  no  reason  for  the  change  except  the  King's 
personal  wish.  The  outgoing  ministers  commanded  a 
majority  in  Parliament.  There  were  no  dissensions 
among  themselves,  nor  were  they  even  at  issue  with  the 
King  on  any  particular  point.  Peel  perceived  immedi- 
u 


/ 


290      CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ately  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  carry  on  the 
government  with  the  existing  House  of  Commons.  He 
therefore  appealed  at  once  to  the  country.  When  the 
new  House  also  proved  hostile  to  him  he  resigned,  and 
the  government  of  Lord  Melbourne  was  reinstated. 
Thus  it  was  proved  that  in  the  reformed  Parliament  not 
only  must  the  minister  have  a  majority,  but  the  mere 
fact  that  he  was  minister  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
insure  that  majority. 

Queen  Victoria  found  Lord  Melbourne  in  office.  She 
gave  him  her  full  confidence,  and  the  royal  household 
was  organized,  and  the  ladies  of  the  bedchamber  were 
chosen  from  among  the  supporters  of  the  ministry.  The 
entire  Court  was  thus  in  sympathy  with  the  adminis- 
tration. In  time  the  ministers  lost  their  Parliamentary 
support,  and  in  May,  1839,  handed  in  their  resignations. 
Sir  Robert  Peel  was  asked  to  form  an  administration. 
He  informed  the  Queen  that  the  changes  must  include 
the  ladies  of  the  bedchamber.  To  this,  she  refused  her 
consent.  The  Melbourne  ministry  was  reinstated,  but 
continued  to  lose  strength  in  Parliament.  In  1841  there 
was  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence.  The  country  was 
appealed  to,  and  that  also  proved  hostile.  Lord  Mel- 
bourne again  resigned,  and  the  task  of  forming  an  ad- 
ministration was  again  assigned  to  Sir  Robert  Peel. 
This  time  the  Queen  raised  no  difficulty  on  the  subject 
of  the  bedchamber  question. 


LATER   CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  29 1 

Here  the  struggle  with  the  Crown  may  be  said  to  end.^ 
In  1850,  through  the  Prime  Minister,  Lord  John  Russell, 
the  Queen  sent  a  memorandum  to  Lord  Palmerston,  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  in  which  she  de- 
fined the  relations  which  should  exist  between  the  Crown 
and  the  Foreign  Secretary.  It  read  as  follows :  "  The 
Queen  desires  first  that  Lord  Palmerston  will  distinctly 
state  what  he  proposes  in  a  given  case,  in  order  that  the 
Queen  may  know  as  distinctly  to  what  she  is  giving  her 
royal  sanction.  Secondly,  having  once  given  her  sanc- 
tion to  a  measure,  that  it  be  not  arbitrarily  altered 
or  modified  by  the  minister.  Such  an  act  she  must 
consider  as  failing  in  sincerity  toward  the  Crown,  and 
justly  to  be  visited  by  the  exercise  of  her  constitutional 
right  of  dismissing  that  minister.  She  expects  to  be 
kept  informed  of  what  passes  between  him  and  the  for- 
eign ministers,  before  important  decisions  are  taken, 
based  upon  that  intercourse ;  to  receive  the  foreign 
despatches  in  good  time ;  and  to  have  the  drafts  for 
her  approval   sent   to   her   in   sufficient   time  to   make 

1  Professor  Seeley  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  great 
prominence  which  legislation  began  to  assume  in  the  early  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century  had  much  to  do  with  the  decrease  in  the 
power  of  the  Crown,  and  the  increase  in  the  power  of  the  minister. 
Government  had  begun  to  mean  legislation  as  much  or  ^|||||i  more 
than  administration,  and  in  much  of  this  legislation  th«'  Crown 
had  no  special  interest.  See  Seeley,  "  Introduction  to  Political 
Science,"  pp.  287-290. 


/ 


292       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

herself  acquainted  with  their  contents,  before  they  must 
be  sent  off."  ^ 

When  the  external  relationships  of  the  Cabinet  were 
settled,  the  internal  relationships  adjusted  themselves. 
During  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  George  III.  there 
was  not,  properly  speaking,  a  Prime  Minister.  Lord 
North  refused  to  allow  himself  to  be  spoken  of  as  Prime 
Minister  in  his  own  family.  And  we  have  seen  how  little 
of  a  Prime  Minister  he  was.  Yet  at  the  time  of  his  coali- 
tion with  Fox  he  acknowledged  himself  to  be  opposed 
to  the  system  of  government  by  departments  which  had 
characterized  his  administration.  "There  should,"  he 
said,  "be  one  man  or  a  Cabinet  to  govern  the  whole, 
and  to  direct  every  measure."^ 

With  the  accession  of  the  younger  Pitt  in  1783  the 
office  of  Prime  Minister,  which  may  be  said  to  have  been 
in  abeyance,  was  revived.  At  first  because  Pitt's  views 
agreed  with  those  of  the  King,  and  later  because  the 
King  could  not  get  on  without  him,  it  was  easy  for  him 
to  maintain  the  supremacy  in  his  Cabinet.  In  1803, 
when  out  of  office,  he  had  a  conversation  with  Lord  Mel- 
ville as  to  the  position  which  the  Prime  Minister  should 
take.  In  this  conversation  he  dwelt  "pointedly  and 
decidedly  upon  the  absolute  necessity  there  is  in  the 
conduct  of  affairs  in  this  country  that  there  should  be 

1  "  Hansard  Debates,"  Third  Series,  Vol.  CXIX.  col.  90. 

2  "  Fox  Correspondence,"  Vol.  II.  p.  37. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  293 

an  avowed  and  real  minister,  possessing  the  chief  weight 
in  the  Council,  and  the  principal  place  in  the  confidence 
of  the  King.  In  that  respect  (he  contended)  there  can 
be  no  rivalry  or  division  of  power.  That  power  must 
rest  in  the  person  generally  called  the  First  Minister, 
and  that  minister  ought  (he  thought)  to  be  the  person 
at  the  head  of  the  finances.  He  knew  to  his  own  com- 
fortable experience  that,  notwithstanding  the  abstract 
truth  of  that  general  proposition,  it  is  noways  incompati- 
ble with  the  most  cordial  concert  and  mutual  exchange 
of  advice  and  intercourse  amongst  the  different  branches 
of  executive  departments.  But  still,  if  it  should  unfortu- 
nately come  to  such  a  radical  difference  of  opinion  that 
no  spirit'  of  conciliation  or  concession  can  reconcile,  the 
sentiments  of  the  minister  must  be  allowed  and  under- 
stood to  prevail,  leaving  the  other  members  of  ad- 
ministration to  act  as  they  may  conceive  themselves 
conscientiously  called  upon  to  act  under  such  cir- 
cumstances." ^ 

The  position  which  Pitt  claimed  for  the  Prime  Min- 
ister, his  successors  have  generally  been  able  to  main- 
tain. Yet  in  1806  it  was  remarked  in  Parliament  that 
"  the  Constitution  abhors  the  idea  of  a  Prime  Minister."  ^ 
In  1829  Lord  Lansdowne  said  that  "nothing  could  be 
more  mischievous  or  unconstitutional  than  to  recognize 

1  Stanhope,  "  Life  of  Pitt,"  Vol.  IV.  p.  24. 
3  "Parliamentary  Debates,"  Vol.  VI.  col.  178. 


294       CABINET  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

by  Act  of  Parliament  the  existence  of  such  an  office."  ^ 
With  the  exception  of  the  elder  Pitt,  Bute,  and  Lord 
Salisbury,  who  were  Secretaries  of  State,  the  Prime 
Ministers  have  always  held  the  official  position  of  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury. 

When  Lord  Rockingham  succeeded  Lord  North   in 

^1782,  there  was,  with  the  exception  of  the  Chancellor, 

an  entire  change  in  the  administration.      This  was  the 

first    time    that   so   complete   a   change   was    made    in 

deference   to   the   wishes  of    Parliament.^      "At   last," 

wrote  the  King,   "the  fatal  day  has  come,  which  the 

misfortunes  of  the   times,   and  the  sudden   change  of 

\  sentiments  of  the  House  of  Commons,  have  drove  me 

I    to  changing  the  ministry,  and  a  more  general  removal 

\  of  other  persons  than  I  believe  ever  was  known  before."^ 

VThe   precedent  which  was   set  at  that   time  has  been 

VoUowed  ever  since.      If  any  members  of  the  outgoing 

O^binet   remain  in  office,  it  is  by  special   arrangement 

with  the  new  Premier. 

Until  1783  there  were  gradations  in  the  Cabinet. 
Some  members  were  intrusted  with  more  of  the  secrets 
of  government  than  were  others.      In  1782  Lord  Shel- 

1  "Mirror  of  Parliament,"  1829,  p.  1167. 

2  As  was  noticed  on  p.  230,  because  of  the  personal  preference 
of  the  King,  there  was  a  full  change  in  the  administration  at  the 
time  of  the  accession  of  George  I. 

^  "  Correspondence  of  George  III.  and  Lord  North,"  March  27, 
1782. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  295 

burne,  perhaps  rather  facetiously,  described  the  state 
of  affairs  to  Jeremy  Bentham.  There  was,  he  said, 
the  First  Cabinet,  which  included  all  those  who  were 
ever  asked  to  attend  Cabinet  meetings.  Above  this 
was  the  Cabinet  with  the  circulation,  that  is,  with 
the  privilege  of  the  key  to  the  Cabinet  boxes,  wherein 
were  kept  foreign  despatches  and  other  papers  con- 
taining matters  of  interest  to  the  ministers.  Above 
this  in  turn  was  the  Cabinet  with  the  circulation  and 
the  po^^office,  that  is,  with  the  power  of  ordering 
letters  of  individuals  to  be  opened  at  the  post-office.^ 
This  last  was  a  right  which  belonged  technically  only 
to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

As  soon  as  the  paramount  authority  of  the  Prime 
Minister  was  acknowledged,  government  by  departments 
ceased.  After  the  coup  d^etat  of  the  2d  of  Decem- 
ber, 185 1,  in  Paris,  the  Cabinet  decided  upon  a  policy  . 
of  non-intervention.  When  it  was  discovered  that  Lord 
Palmerston,  the  Foreign  Secretary,  had  expressed  to 
M.  Walewski,  the  French  Ambassador,  his  "entire 
approbation  of  the  act  of  the  President^  and  that  he 
could  not  have  done  otherwise  than  he  had  done," 
he  was  dismissed,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  exceeded 
his  authority  as  Secretary  of  State. 

With   the   acknowledgment   of  the   authority   of  the 
Prime    Minister,    the    principle    of   unanimity    in    the 
1  Bentham,  "Works,"  Vol.  IX.  p.  218. 


296       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Cabinet  also  developed  rapidly.  In  181 2  there  was 
a  proposition  to  form  a  mixed  Cabinet,  giving  to  the 
Whigs  a  majority  of  one.  The  Whi^  leaders  refused 
to  consider  it,  on  the  ground  that  "to  construct  a 
Cabinet  on  a  system  of  counteraction  was  inconsistent 
with  the  prosecution  of  any  uniform  and  beneficial  course 
of  policy."^ 

So  strong  is  the  bond  of  union  in  the  Cabinet  that 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  if  one  member  falls,  the 
others  fall  with  him.  Yet  occasionally  when  the  indis- 
creet or  unpopular  action  of  an  individual  minister 
clearly  forms  no  part  of  the  government  poHcy,  the 
penalty  for  such  action  may  be  visited  upon  the  head 
of  the  offending  minister  alone.  Thus,  in  1855,  Lord 
John  Russell,  then  Secretary  of  State  for  the  colonies, 
was  sent  to  the  conference  at  Vienna  as  the  English 
representative.  While  there,  he  approved  of  the  pro- 
posals made  by  Austria,  and  supported  them.  But  the 
government  at  home  would  not  hear  of  them.  Where- 
upon Russell,  as  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  condemned 
in  Parliament  the  very  resolutions  which  he  had  sup- 
ported at  Vienna.  Such  inconsistency  failed  to  find 
favor  in  the  Commons.  Sir  Edward  Bulwer-Lytton 
gave  notice  of  a  vote  of  censure  on  "  the  minister 
charged  with  the  negotiations  at  Vienna."  Russell 
anticipated  the  vote  by  resigning  his  office.  The  other 
1  Stapleton,  "  Canning  and  his  Times,"  p.  201. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  29/ 

members  of  the  Cabinet  remained  in  office,  and  the 
motion  was  withdrawn.  Another  example  is  that  of 
Lord  Ellenborough  in  1858.  In  that  year,  Canning, 
as  Governor  General  of  India,  issued  his  famous  proc- 
lamation. Lord  Ellenborough,  who  was  President  of 
the  Board  of  Control,  took  it  upon  himself  to  send 
Canning  an  eloquent  despatch,  condemning  this  proc- 
lamation. Lord  Shaftesbury  moved  a  resolution  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  declaring  that  the  House  regarded 
with  apprehension  the  sending  of  such  a  despatch, 
and  that  such  a  course  must  prejudice  the  English  rule 
in  India  by  weakening  the  authority  of  the  Governor 
General,  and  encouraging  the  rebels  still  in  arms.  A 
similar  resolution  was  introduced  into  the  Commons. 
Lord  Ellenborough  immediately  resigned  his  office, 
thereby  taking  upon  himself  the  whole  responsibility 
for  his  action.  The  resolution  was  defeated  in  the 
Lords,  withdrawn  in  the  Commons. 

The  Cabinet  varies  in  number  at  the  pleasure  of 
the  Prime  Minister.  It  always  contains  the  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, the  Secretaries  of  State,  now  five  in  number, 
the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  the  Lord  High  Chan- 
cellor, the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  and  the  Lord  President 
of  the  Council.  From  three  to  eight  other  persons 
are  included  as  determined  by  the  Premier.  Lord 
Beaconsfield   thought   that  the  number  should  be  lim- 


298       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

ited  to  twelve.  But  of  late  years  the  tendency  has  been 
for  the  membership  to  increase. 

In  1 80 1,  when  Addington  became  Prime  Minister, 
Lord  Loughborough,  who  had  been  Chancellor  under 
Pitt,  resigned  the  Great  Seal.  Yet  he  still  retained 
the  key  of  the  Cabinet  boxes,  and  continued,  though 
unsummoned,  to  attend  meetings  of  the  Cabinet. 
Addington  finally  wrote  to  him,  requesting  him  to 
discontinue  doing  so,  as  he  was  "of  the  opinion  that 
the  number  of  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  should 
not  exceed  that  of  the  persons  whose  responsible 
situations  in  office  require  their  being  members  of 
it."  ^ 

Until  1765,  when  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
was  not  identical  with  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury, 
he  was  not  necessarily  included  in  the  Cabinet. 
When,  in  that  year,  Dowdeswell  was  appointed 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  there  was  doubt  as  to 
whether  he  was  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet.^ 

The  elder  Pitt  would  seem  to  have  abohshed  the 
custom  of  including  the  household  officers  in  the 
Cabinet.  The  Lord  Chamberlain  and  the  Master  of 
the  Horse  were  included  in  the  first  Rockingham 
administration.  In  Pitt's  administration  which  fol- 
lowed,  they  were    not   included.      It   seems   probable 

.    1  Campbell,  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  Vol.  V.  p.  327. 
2  "  Cavendish  Debates,"  Vol.  I.  p.  576. 


LATER    CABINET  DEVELOPMENT  299 

that  in  this  matter  Pitt  estabhshed  a  precedent,  which 
was  at  least  generally  followed. 

The  Lord  Chief  Justice  has  sometimes  been  a 
member  of  the  Cabinet.  But  when,  in  1806,  Lord 
Ellenborough,  then  Chief  Justice  of  the  King's  Bench, 
was  appointed  Lord  President  of  the  Council,  with 
a  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  a  resolution  was  proposed  in 
the  House  of  Lords  "  that  it  was  highly  inexpedient, 
and  tended  to  weaken  the  administration  of  justice 
to  summon  to  any  committe  or  assembly  of  the  Privy 
Council  any  of  the  judges  of  his  Majesty's  courts  of 
common  law."  Resolutions  proposed  in  the  House 
of  Commons  declared  "  that  it  was  highly  inexpedi- 
ent that  functions  of  ministers  of  state,  and  confiden- 
tial advisers  of  executive  measures  of  government, 
should  be  kept  distinct  and  separate  from  those  of  a 
judge  at  common  law,"  and  that  the  appointment  of 
the  Lord  Chief  Justice  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet  was 
"peculiarly  inexpedient  and  unadvisable,  tending  to 
expose  to  suspicion  and  bring  into  disrepute  the  inde- 
pendence and  impartiality  of  the  judicial  character, 
and  to  render  less  satisfactory,  if  not  less  pure,  the 
administration  of  public  justice."^  These  resolutions 
were  rejected,  and  Lord  Ellenborough  continued  to 
sit  in  the  Cabinet.     But  in  a  debate  in  the  House  of 

1  "  Hansard  Parliamentary  Debates,"  First  Series,  Vol.  VI.  col.  178 
et  seq. 


300       CABINET   GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND 

Lords,  in  1837,  the  union  of  political  functions  with 
a  permanent  judicial  office  was  condemned  by  legal 
and  constitutional  authorities  alike. 

The  office  of  Commander-in-chief  has  at  times 
been  associated  with  a  Cabinet  position,  notably  in 
the  cases  of  Marlborough  and  of  Wellington.  But 
since  Wellington's  day  it  has  been  customary  to  con- 
sider the  position  non-political. 

Great  churchmen  have  also  sometimes  held  minis- 
terial positions.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  a 
rather  prominent  member  of  Walpole's  Cabinet.  But 
it  is  not  probable  that  a  bishop  will  again  hold  such 
a  position.  The  Catholic  emancipation  and  the  repeal 
of  the  civil  disabilities  of  Dissenters  have  somewhat 
altered  the  relations  between  Church  and  State.  More- 
over, public  opinion  objects  to  a  clergyman  who  takes 
too  active  a  part  in  politics. 

As  was  said  at  the  beginning.  Cabinet  government  is 
the  result  not  of  legislation  but  of  development.  The 
growing  tendencies  toward  bureaucracy  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  final  stage  of  this  development  has  not 
yet  been  reached.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  in  such  a 
process  there  will  be  a  final  stage.  How  much  of  what 
has  been  accomplished  is  to  be  permanent,  time  will 
show. 


^  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


UNIVERST-^v  o^ 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 


JAN  €    :s^ 


^;-;X:-D  i  .n 


APR  2  5  tat)j 


20Aug'61LE 


TZECimJ 


AUG  1 0  ibo. 


UBRARV  USE 


Tjcrri963 


RZrC'D  LD 


QlKU^m 


^ 


YB  08549 


r^ 


loH^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


•4:      .^  ->. 


s  -y  .  < 


